PDA

View Full Version : Taliban's terms for peace talks outlined @ "University of Jihad", Pakistan



Peter Dow
02-04-2012, 11:24 AM
How to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan / Pakistan (and win the war on terror)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXMHnu-7ZZk

Peter Dow's "no" to Taliban's surrender terms. Afpak strategy for victory in war on terror. (YouTube) (http://youtu.be/aXMHnu-7ZZk)


CBS News: Divisions within Taliban make peace elusive (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57370804/divisions-within-taliban-make-peace-elusive)

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta made news Wednesday when he said the combat role for U.S. troops in Afghanistan could end next year instead of 2014. On Thursday, he took a step back -- insisting U.S. forces will remain combat ready -- even as they transition into their new role of training Afghan troops.

Another part of the U.S. strategy involves getting the Taliban to hold peace talks with the Afghan government. CBS News correspondent Clarissa Ward spoke with some top Taliban representatives where they live in Pakistan.

They call Sami ul Haq the "Father of the Taliban," one of Pakistan's most well-known and hard-line Islamists.

Ward visited ul Haq at his religious school near the Afghan border. Many Afghan Taliban leaders and fighters studied there, earning it the nickname the "University of Jihad."

Ul Haq said that top Taliban figures are receptive to the idea of peace talks, but that three key conditions must be met first: The Americans must leave Afghanistan, he told Ward. Secondly, Taliban leaders should be released from Guantonamo. The third demand is there should be no outside interference in Afghanistan.

It's unlikely that American negotiators will accept these terms, though a release of some prisoners from Guantanamo Bay has been discussed.

While some elements of the Taliban's leadership may be supportive of peace talks, there are clear signs that divisions exist within the group. Many of the younger, more militant foot soldiers insisting that they are not ready to stop fighting.

At a small guesthouse on the outskirts of Islamabad, CBS News had the rare chance to sit down with a young Taliban commander from Helmand province. For security reasons, he asked that his face be not shown.

"If these talks in Doha are successful and Taliban leaders tell you and your fighters to put down your arms, will you do it?" asked Ward.

"No, it will not happen," he said. "And those who are talking to the political wing of the Taliban should understand that real peace is only possible by talking to the ground fighters."

"So the bottom line is you're not willing to compromise, you're not willing to collaborate? Is there any chance of peace?"

"If the Afghan government announced tomorrow that strict Islamic law would be reinstated, we would accept that," he said, "but those in power now will never go along with that."

For the moment, there is a huge gulf between what the Taliban and their backers want and what America would be willing to accept.

So the Deans of Jihad have dictated terms to the West, the terms they propose of the West's surrender to the Jihadis in the war on terror.

So what should the response of the West be? Should we surrender to the Jihadis, or should we fight to win?

This guy Sami ul Haq should be a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp along with his University of Jihad colleagues, his controllers from the Pakistani ISI and his financial backers from Saudi Arabia.

The US and Western allies ought to name Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as "state sponsors of terrorism".

There ought to be drone strikes on the University of Jihad. (Darul Uloom Haqqania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darul_Uloom_Haqqania), Akora Khattak, Pakistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akora_Khattak))

We ought to seize control of Pakistani and Saudi TV satellites and use them to broadcast propaganda calling for the arrest of all involved in waging terrorist war against the West.

It just seems very poor tactics for our military to be risking life and limb in the minefields of Afghanistan yet at the strategic level our governments and businesses are still "trading with the enemy". :confused:

As the Star Trek character Commander Scott might have said -

"It's war, Captain but not as we know it." :tongue:

Banned
02-04-2012, 06:06 PM
The terms are reasonable... so there is no chance that our leaders will accept them. When the American Government talks about "terms", what they actually mean is "unconditional surrender".

Pullinteeth
02-05-2012, 04:07 AM
Ul Haq said that top Taliban figures are receptive to the idea of peace talks, but that three key conditions must be met first: The Americans must leave Afghanistan, he told Ward. Secondly, Taliban leaders should be released from Guantonamo. The third demand is there should be no outside interference in Afghanistan.

I wonder if our terms would be all that different if the U.S. were invaded.... Not saying they are right, not saying I agree with anything they stand for, just wondering...

AJBIGJ
02-06-2012, 01:46 PM
Do we even remember why we entered into Afghanistan anymore? One would think a continued presence there might be to pursue completion of a core original objective still left outstanding. Can someone please elaborate which objective that would be? If the objective is to eliminate every single "potential" combatant I know of a solution that would make this over tomorrow. I'm pretty sure that's not the objective so unless someone can lay out something specific, adhering to 2 of 3 of these demands would actually be in our own best interest anyways!

Banned
02-07-2012, 12:36 AM
Ul Haq said that top Taliban figures are receptive to the idea of peace talks, but that three key conditions must be met first: The Americans must leave Afghanistan, he told Ward. Secondly, Taliban leaders should be released from Guantonamo. The third demand is there should be no outside interference in Afghanistan.

I wonder if our terms would be all that different if the U.S. were invaded.... Not saying they are right, not saying I agree with anything they stand for, just wondering...

Probably not. Even releasing prisoners isn't that unusual, or even unreasonable to ask. So if we ended the war in Afghanistan, what does our government plan to do with all the prisoners? Just keep them locked up forever? Apparently so.


Do we even remember why we entered into Afghanistan anymore? One would think a continued presence there might be to pursue completion of a core original objective still left outstanding. Can someone please elaborate which objective that would be? If the objective is to eliminate every single "potential" combatant I know of a solution that would make this over tomorrow. I'm pretty sure that's not the objective so unless someone can lay out something specific, adhering to 2 of 3 of these demands would actually be in our own best interest anyways!

I remember asking my Major (a real warhawk of course, like most officers) that same question - "What exactly are our objectives in Afghanistan?"

He stared for a minute, then said "That's a good question".

No shit.

Peter Dow
07-15-2012, 11:02 PM
Bomb Taliban Jihadi indoctrination bases in Pakistan.

I want to tell you all how to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

So this is about "AfPak" military strategy and as well as direct advice for US, British & NATO generals, it is to inform the public so our political leaders know what can be done and what to ask of our military.

I am suggesting that our forces bomb the Taliban Headquarters known as "the University of Jihad" or Darul Uloom Haqqania, Akora Khattak, 50 kilometres (31 miles) east of the provincial capital, Peshawar.

More about the place in this BBC webpage

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3155112.stm

The significance of this place is that it is the main recruitment and command centre for the Taliban which must be known to our military intelligence officers and so it is a mystery why they have not advised our generals to bomb this place before now or if they did advise our generals to bomb it why they didn't actually bomb it?

It makes no sense in a war to give the enemy headquarters a free pass and immunity from being targeted. It just makes their commanders feel untouchable which is not how we want them to feel. We want them arrested or dead or in great fear that soon they will be arrested or dead and bombing their HQ gives them that idea.

Our forces do not have ground forces close enough to use artillery to destroy this target so that leaves NATO to use its aerial power - drones and bomber planes, to bomb the target from the air.

So apart from not wanting to use nuclear weapons on such a weak target which would be over-kill, I think bombing using the very heaviest conventional bombs, MOABs or heavy bombing from B52s or C130s is appropriate.

Heavy bombing could be used to totally level such targets, or turn the target site into one huge crater field - obliterate it. Give the Jihadis a demonstration that they won't ever forget!

Then if the Taliban and Jihadi leaders relocate to a new recruitment, indoctrination and command base, blast that to pieces as well.

Our forces will have to establish air superiority over the target areas to allow not only unmanned drones but piloted heavy bombers with a much heavier bomb load to over-fly the area reasonably safely.

How to manage Pakistan

If and when Pakistan objects to our plans to aerial bomb these enemy command and indoctrination bases we should tell them that because our view is that Pakistan does not control the ground there to our satisfaction - because Pakistani police or military have not arrested and handed over the likes of the Darul Uloom Haqqania and other Taliban leaders operating on the ground for removal to Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp and not closed down the University of Jihad and other Taliban bases then the Pakistan military don't deserve control of the air space over that ground which they don't satisfactorily control.

So we can say "Sorry" if the Pakistanis don't like this violation of their sovereignty but the needs of war mean this is something we must do. We wouldn't intend to permanently deprive Pakistan of control over its air space; this would be a temporary measure until the war on terror is won.

Pakistan had their chance to arrest or kill the Taliban leaders in their Pakistan bases but now it is too late so we are going to flatten the Taliban bases in that part of Pakistan from the air and we need total air superiority over the target area in order to protect our pilots.

The Pakistan government and military has complained about drone strikes in parts of Pakistan but Pakistan has not gone to war with us about it, thankfully.

Hopefully, the Pakistanis will not want to contest air superiority with their military but if they do decide to fight to resist our air-superiority where we need it to bomb the Taliban then we must be prepared to take out all nearby Pakistani ground to air missile batteries and any air fighters they send against us to contest air superiority.

If the Pakistanis decide to fight us over control of Pakistan's air space then of course there is a risk this could escalate to all-out war if the Pakistanis really want to make a casus belli out of the sovereignty issue and the matter of us requiring to destroy the Taliban so possibly we should make it clear to the Pakistanis that the US President or the NATO supreme commander has the option to use tactical nuclear weapons against Pakistani military bases anywhere in Pakistan if that was necessary to win an all-out war with Pakistan. Please do not misunderstand. The word "tactical" is underlined for a good reason - tactical means "not strategic", "not our biggest nukes that can destroy whole cities in a flash". OK? Got that? No-one needs to threaten the use of our strategic nuclear weapons against Pakistani cities! I am happy to rule that option out as any part of my strategy!

That's not our aim to escalate to an all-out war with Pakistan here but Pakistan should be careful not to escalate the situation from one where we need to go after the Taliban only into one where the official Pakistan military gets dragged into a war with us unnecessarily.

This risk of having to fight and win an all-out war with Pakistan is a lesser risk than failing to defeat the Taliban, withdrawing from Pakistan having achieved little to secure Afghanistan and thereby giving encouragement to Jihadis the world over to commit more acts of terrorism and war elsewhere in the world including in our homelands. So Pakistan should not force us to make that choice of two risky options because their defeat is preferable to our own defeat in our opinion.

Pakistan should avoid war with the West by stepping back and allowing us to destroy the Taliban in Pakistan because it is the Taliban and the Jihadis who are the true enemies of the Pakistani and Afghan people. We are the friends of the people of Pakistan and we will prove that by defeating their and our enemy, the Taliban and associated Jihadis.

Hopefully the Pakistanis will back off and let us bomb the Taliban without threat from Pakistan's air defences. We should tell Pakistan that we are doing them a favour which they will thank us for in the long run though we appreciate the embarrassment for them in the short term.


Stop giving Pakistan aid while the state secretly sponsors terrorism

Without the Taliban's state sponsors, especially Pakistan, the Taliban would quickly run out of supplies and run out of capacity to wage war.

What does not help the people of Pakistan to exercise responsible government of the state, what makes difficult the people's and their politicians' decision to stop the Pakistani military intelligence agency, the ISI, and its associated secret state elements from sponsoring terrorism is if Pakistan gets $2 billion every year in aid from the USA, tax-payer money, while it continues to sponsor terrorism.

The USA, in particular, as the largest aid donor to Pakistan, should stop aid funding of Pakistan until such time as the people of Pakistan have proven they have exercised the power to stop the state sponsoring terrorism.

Otherwise if the aid to Pakistan continues regardless, the Pakistani generals whose "big idea" sponsoring terrorism was, will claim the international aid money being received is as a consequence of their policy to support terrorism, will claim that so much aid money could only be conned out of the wealthy West, especially the US, by playing the state's secret double game, sponsoring terrorism while claiming to be trying to stop terrorism at the same time.

It's very much like Pakistan is blackmailing the West in a kind of protection racket. Pakistan is saying to us - "Give us billions of dollars of aid money, or else the terrorism will be even worse!"

Our governments should not cave in to Pakistan's blackmail and protection racket.

We are only ever morally obligated to pay any aid money to our loyal allies, never to our backstabbing enemy which is what the Pakistani state is right now!

Summary

So we should handle Pakistan carefully, sure but we should not be a soft touch. We need to bomb Pakistan surgically and quit paying them aid money until such time as our enemies in Pakistan are defeated and our friends in Pakistan have won. That policy will look a lot to some like arguing for "war on Pakistan" but it is a lot more subtle than that. My policy advice accords better with a war on terror.


SECRET PAKISTAN
Documentary by BBC. Part 1 - Double Cross (1 hour)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSinK-dVrig

Banned
07-18-2012, 01:45 PM
I suggest we use drones to gather surveillance data on all coffee mug factories in the Afghanistan region. Wait for one to receive an order to produce mugs with the Taliban corporate logo. Follow the trucks carrying the coffee mugs back to the Taliban annual Corporate Executive Retreat... and then blow it up.

While their leadership is still in confusion, carry out a hostile takeover, buying as many Taliban shares as we can, and get a majority on the board.

We win.

Peter Dow
07-18-2012, 07:49 PM
I think bombing using the very heaviest conventional bombs, MOABs or heavy bombing from B52s or C130s is appropriate.

So a "MOAB" would be one of those.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX5h2fjhKyQ

Which has a blast radius of 450 feet or 137 metres.

The target area of the campus of University of Jihad looks to be about 100 metres x 100 metres. Hard to guess from the satellite photo. (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=34.000603,72.121683&spn=0.01,0.01&t=m&q=34.000603,72.121683)

Here is the Jihadis' own website for the base International Islamic University: Darul Uloom Haqqania (http://www.jamiahaqqania.edu.pk) which has a number of photographs and is helpfully in English.

Anyway a MOAB on that lot is certainly going to spoil their day and their terror-war plans.

Peter Dow
05-04-2013, 07:59 PM
The desire for "peace talks" with the enemy is where poor generals with a failed war strategy end up.

Why would NATO and specifically the US want to encourage "peace talks" with the enemy Taliban? Why not simply crush the enemy? What's the political or military issue here that might mean "peace talks" would be part of an exit strategy for the US and allies?

Key failures have been -


Weak strategic thinking and planning by US and then NATO generals has dragged out the Western intervention in Afghanistan since 2001 and caused far more casualties to our soldiers than was ever necessary.


The military general staff has lacked vision about the enemy and failed to comprehend and react appropriately to intelligence reports that Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other jihadi terror groups are proxies for hostile states, typically managed from Pakistan and funded from Saudi Arabia.

This 2-hour video is of a British TV programme which explains in great detail the role of the Pakistani state via the ISI (Inter-services intelligence) has in supporting the Taliban's war against our forces in Afghanistan.

(See post #6 for part 1 of this video)

SECRET PAKISTAN
Documentary by BBC. Part 2 - Backlash (1 hour)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5-lSSC9dSE


RECOMMENDED VIDEO - 2 HOURS WELL SPENT!


Military strategic essentials have been neglected, such as - when occupying territory, always ensure secure supply routes from one strong point to another. Instead NATO-ISAF forces in Afghanistan have been deployed in isolated bases, deployed more like tethered goats as bait for the enemy than a conquering or liberating army.


Some combination of military incompetence by the generals and a preference for appeasement on the part of the civilian political leadership has perversely left the West bribing our enemies within the Pakistani terrorist-proxy-controlling state and continuing business-as-usual with our enemies in the Saudi jihadi-financing state.



My 4-point plan to beat the Taliban and win the war on terror

It's never too late to learn lessons and adopt an alternative competent and aggressive military strategy. I have already mentioned the outline points of my plan but I will explain those in a little more here and then provide a lot more detail in subsequent posts.

Point 1

* The US and Western allies ought to name Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt as "state sponsors of terrorism". We ought to name in addition, the other oil-rich Arab kingdoms who are also financial state sponsors of terrorism. This has implications such as ending bribes and deals with back-stabbing hostile countries and instead waging war against our enemies with the aim of regime change or incapacitating the enemy so that they can do us little more harm. The war could be of varying intensity depending on the enemy concerned and how they respond to our initial attacks, whether they wish to escalate the war or surrender to our reasonable demands.

Point 2

* We need to take the fight to the Taliban leadership wherever they are based in Pakistan. For example, there ought to be drone strikes on the University of Jihad. (Darul Uloom Haqqania, Akora Khattak, Pakistan) In addition, we ought to employ aerial bombing of all other bases for the Taliban in Pakistan. This may have to be extended to include certain Pakistani state bases which are supporting the Taliban - such as the Pakistani ISI headquarters mentioned a lot in the BBC documentary "SECRET PAKISTAN". If this is not handled very carefully, it could escalate into open war with the Pakistani military. I explained how to manage Pakistan in post #6.

Point 3

* We ought to seize control of Pakistani, Egyptian, Saudi and Iranian TV satellites and use them to broadcast propaganda calling for the arrest of all involved in waging terrorist war against the West. Often, these satellites are made, launched and maintained by Western companies and should be easy to take over. Other satellites provided to the enemy by non-Western countries could be jammed or destroyed. Air strikes against the enemy's main terrestrial TV transmitter aerials is another option to silence enemy propaganda.

Point 4

* When occupying territory, always ensure secure bases and supply routes from one base to another. I will provide a lot of details about how this can be done militarily.

Peter Dow
05-04-2013, 08:10 PM
4. Secure supply routes for Afghanistan. Overview from 'Warlord Inc.'

There's a lot of information here so I will start with a post presenting an overview of the issues and problems starting with this CBS news story which identifies a critical weakness in our military configuration - poorly defended supply lines whose vulnerability the enemy exploits to gain funds for its insurgency in Afghanistan.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbqAampl5pA

U.S. funds our enemy Taliban's Afghan war - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbqAampl5pA)


CBS News: U.S. Tax Dollars Fueling Afghan Insurgency (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/21/eveningnews/main6604606.shtml)
House Investigation: Private Contractors Paying Warlords, Criminals to Get Supplies to U.S. and NATO Bases

Billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars are fuelling corruption in Afghanistan and funding the insurgency, according to a six-month investigation by the House subcommittee on National Security and Foreign affairs.

http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/1641/warlordinc.jpg

Download Warlord, Inc. Extortion and Corruption Along the U.S. Supply Chain in Afghanistan - Right-click, Save Target As ... (http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/documents/warlords.pdf)


[Washington Post] Hillary Clinton said (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-12-08/politics/36857394_1_afghanistan-solicitation-contractors)-

"You know, when we are so dependent upon long supply lines, as in Afghanistan, where everything has to be imported, it’s much more difficult than it was in Iraq, where we had Kuwait as a staging ground to go into Iraq. You offload a ship in Karachi and by the time whatever it is – you know, muffins for our soldiers’ breakfasts or anti-IED equipment – gets to where we’re headed, it goes through a lot of hands. And one of the major sources of funding for the Taliban is the protection money."

– Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton
Testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
December 3, 2009

Peter Dow
05-04-2013, 08:17 PM
Supplying along a land route (road and/or railway) through friendly territory is easy enough. Supplying through a war-zone, or bandit country requires a military approach, something like this.

Secure supply route border defences plan diagram

(Please note the word "border" here simply means road-"side" or road-"edge" or road-"verge" or road-"wings" or road-"perimeter" etc.
It does not refer to the Afghanistan / Pakistan international border! :nono
We are talking here mostly about defending the existing highways of Afghanistan.
For some strange reason people like to obsess about the Afghan / Pakistan border and anytime you say the word "border" in any context, that's what they assume you are talking about. NOT THIS TIME BUDDY! :nono OK? Ya'll got that?)

My plan is to establish a secure wide border either side of the supply route to keep enemy mortar and rocket launcher teams out of range of the supply line.

Apparently, the Taliban are being supplied indirect fire weapons from Iran so defenders need to be prepared to expect attacks using weapons such as 120 mm heavy mortars, with a range of 6200 metres and 107 mm rocket launchers with a range of 8500 metres.


The Telegraph: Iranian weapons getting through to Taliban (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/5477283/Iranian-weapons-getting-through-to-Taliban.html)

Heavy weapons are continuing to stream across the Afghan border from Iran despite Barack Obama's attempts to enlist Tehran's help in fighting the insurgency, officials have said.

So regretfully there is no avoiding the requirement for compulsory purchase of land and eviction of occupiers along a 19 kilometre or 12 mile wide corridor, the whole length of the supply route.

More aggressively NATO might like to consider long-range missile attacks against Iranian weapons productions facilities in Iran to dissuade the Iranians from supplying the Taliban.

Secure border for a supply route - 19 kilometres or 12 miles wide

http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/5218/secureborder760.jpg

Secure supply route border defences plan diagram (large - 960 x 1374 pixels) (http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/4343/secureborder.jpg)

As can be seen in the diagram, the border perimeter defences are much the same whether you are securing a railway or a road.

Diagram features. Explained for secure Afghanistan supply routes.


Dangerous ground Enemy forces such as the Taliban, Afghan warlords or Iranian proxies may be attacking the supply route from here
Vehicle barrier - deep trench / giant boulders / steep slope - so that truck bombs cannot be driven onto the route
STOP - Police check-point - police check civilians are unarmed and those in police or military uniform are genuine. Needs to be very robust so as to survive an enemy truck bomb.
Barbed wire - enough to keep out people and larger animals - so more than a horse can jump or cattle can trample over
No Pedestrians! Cleared ground Target zone for the machine gunners. A hostile intent should be assumed if an intruder is seen here and the intruder should be shot. The ground needs to be cleared of cover so that intruders can be easily spotted and cannot sneak their way past the machine gunners.
GUN - Fortified machine gun nests / pillboxes 3 man crew. Armour should be able to withstand an RPG hit and contains one machine gun with an effective range to 1000 metres, such as PKM or better. One every 1000 metres on both borders should be manned 24/7. Binoculars, automatic rifles such as AK47 and night vision for 3. Two or more other gun positions per 1000 m on each border are normally unmanned and don't need the expense of real guns sitting there all the time. Such extra positions confuse attackers and serve as firing positions for mobile reaction teams to occupy in emergencies and who can bring additional weapons with them.
For the on-duty-shift manned pillboxes, I suppose the better (longer effective range, heavier the bullet) a machine gun the better. At a minimum the plan needs a machine gun with a 1000 metre effective range to keep Taliban RPG out of range of the pillbox.
Ideally I suppose a heavy machine gun (say 12.7 mm ammo, 1800 metres effective range) with its longer range would be best for stopping an advance of the enemy and would give enemy snipers and heavy machine guns at long ranges something to worry about though I think the plan would work well with a medium machine gun (say 7.6 mm ammo, 1500 metres effective range).
The disadvantage about the heavy machine gun is it is a more difficult 2-man carry when the team decide to move it to another pillbox to confuse the enemy but the extra range and fire-power of a heavy machine gun may well be worth the carry.
I suggest armoured sights which allow the machine-gunner to fire accurately despite incoming sniper or machine gun fire intended to suppress the pillbox.
If a tank-crew machine-gunner can fire from inside his tank by virtue of armoured sights, without being suppressed, so should a well designed pillbox, in my opinion.
Squad automatic weapons or light machine guns (say, 5.56 mm ammo, 900 metres effective range) would be better stored in the APC to be quickly carried into the empty pillboxes to defend an emergency attack and such lighter machine guns are also useful in the APC for responding to an attack anywhere in the secure corridor.
Access road Where authorised traffic and people can access or leave the supply route.
Mortar teams' ground Defender mortar teams arriving from mobile response depots should set up somewhere here to fire at the enemy in the dangerous ground. The mortar teams' ground should have features to help to win mortar duels with the enemy such as observation points on higher ground or tall structures to serve as observation towers.
Safe building ground Somewhere relatively safe to build a heliport, runway, supply store or other facility or base.
Supply route The road and / or railway we are defending
Crossing Where the access road crosses a supply route railway
Station - Railway station to load and unload supplies and people onto and off the supply trains.
Cross-roads - A four-way junction where the access road crosses the supply road.
Mobile reaction depot - contains single armoured fighting vehicle. This is also where the off-duty mess is so that soldiers are available to react to sustained attacks anywhere along the supply route. One every 2km. Contains additional infantry weapons and ammunition such as additional machine guns, automatic rifles, rocket propelled grenade launchers, mortars and the rest.
Armoured personnel carrier Such as an up-armoured humvee. Most mobile reaction depots have one of those. To transport soldiers to the proximity of the enemy attack where soldiers dismount to fight.
Infantry fighting vehicle or armoured combat vehicle. With stronger armour and able to fire on the enemy from enhanced weapons mounted to the vehicle, as well as able to perform the soldier transport role of the APC. Ideally the defenders would prefer the more powerful IFVs to the battle taxi APCs but fewer mobile reaction depots house IFVs because IFVs cost more and so fewer are available to the defenders than the lower performing APCs.


http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/6152/securesupply4s.jpg
Showing about a length of 40 miles of road, left to right. The width of the road corridor (up and down in the image) is about 12 miles.

Example

Let's do an example.

Suppose we want to secure Highway 1, the ring road.


Wikipedia: Highway 1 (Afghanistan) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_1_(Afghanistan))

Highway 1 or A01, formally called the Ring Road, is a 2,200 kilometre two-lane road network circulating inside Afghanistan, connecting the following major cities (clock wise): Mazar, Kabul, Ghazni, Kandahar, Farah, and Herat in the west or northwest.

Highway 1 is shown in this image.

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/2526/afghanistanbastion.jpg

So assume you want to secure those 2,200 kilometres which is 1375 miles @ 40 infantry / mile would be 55,000 infantry including a 25% reserve, but not including support troops.

Anyway, Karzai is claiming aid money for somewhere between 200,000 and 300,000 Afghan national army, so take the money from that and it should be plenty for the infantry requirement and a good number of support troops too.

Oh, and we use the assets of the ANA as well. For example, they have got lots of M2 machine guns which would be good for the guard posts, even better if they've got scopes attached to them.

All the rest of the roads we secure as best we can using air-power but without making too many promises.

Any Afghan civilians who want to be sure of getting away from the Taliban can be a refugee in our safe zones.

Well maybe the Afghan government, funded by themselves, not by us, could defend some of their people, possibly in Kabul, but not the whole country for sure.

The plan calls for the supply route to be diverted around large towns or cities so there would likely have to be by-passes built where the existing highway goes through or too close to a town or village.

It would be possible I suppose to envelope the buildings of a village in the secure zone next to the supply route but such a village would come under the protection of NATO and not the Afghan government. There would have to be NATO security conditions applied to anyone who wanted permission to remain in such an enveloped village. It could not be that any warlord or Afghan government official could just keep his gang / office operating out of a village in the secure zone as if they were still in charge. No way. There would only be one authority in the supply route, which would be the NATO countries.

Peter Dow
05-04-2013, 08:24 PM
Secure supply route protection force organisation

I am proposing a dedicated force of mostly Afghan soldiers (though this could and perhaps should in the light of recent increasing green-on-blue attacks initially be set up as a force which is auxiliary to NATO-ISAF, with NATO commanders, rather than part of the Afghan National Army) to secure NATO's main supply routes through Afghanistan.

Suggested name
Nato Auxiliary Supply-route PROtection FORce - NASPROFOR

Organisation.

Ranks in increasing order of seniority -


Gunner
Master Gunner
Team Leader
Shift Officer
Depot Commander
Reaction Captain
Sector Major

There will be higher officer ranks yet to be specified.

Duties of the ranks.

1. Gunner - infantry soldier, serves as a member of a 3-man team which serves on one GUN - Fortified machine gun nests / pillboxes position normally for an 8-hour shift.

A Gunner performs other routine duties for an hour or two each day in addition to his 8-hour shift at the gun position at the nearest Mobile reaction depot under the supervision of his Team Leader, Shift Officer and Depot Commander at which location he has quarters in the depot mess.

A Gunner can also be called to emergency duty when required.

Gunners must be able to

see well
operate the machine gun
fire accurately
reload the machine gun,
change the barrel on the machine gun
use the guns' optical sights and night sights
use the binoculars and night-vision equipment
be comfortable in a GUN - Fortified machine gun nests / pillboxes position,
point out where the No Pedestrians! Cleared ground is and where it ends and where allowed ground behind the gun positions is,
understand that he is forbidden to enter onto the No Pedestrians! Cleared ground on or off duty, even if ordered to do so by anyone in his team because he may be shot if he does so,
understand that he is ordered on and off his duty shift at the GUN - Fortified machine gun nests / pillboxes position only by his own Shift Officer and own Depot Commander and he cannot be relieved of duty by his Team Leader nor by a more senior ranking Master Gunner, nor by any other Shift Officer nor Depot Commander nor by any more senior officer whom he does not know.
understand that while on duty he is not to surrender his personal assault rifle (such as an AK47) to any person, even to someone in his own team. Therefore his Team Leader cannot relieve him of duty nor demand that any Gunner surrender his personal weapon,
understand that it is the Gunner's job when on duty, his job, to shoot on sight anyone on the No Pedestrians! Cleared ground coming or going, even someone dressed in Afghan army uniform, of whatever rank who could be an intruder dressed in disguise or even be a colleague who is deserting in that direction. If he is not manning the machine gun at the time he is to use his personal assault rifle to shoot the person on the No Pedestrians! Cleared ground if they are in range, but he is not to follow in hot pursuit anyone onto the No Pedestrians! Cleared ground because again he may be shot.
understand pillbox defensive tactics as follows.
Sadly, the Taliban are not so obliging as to try to rush a machine gun position since one machine gun could probably take them all out if they were all to charge it clambering through barbed wire over open ground.
The pillbox machine guns would not be used for suppressing the enemy and therefore blasting away at where you thought an enemy was to keep his head down is just a waste of ammunition and overheats the guns to no good purpose.
The tactics to be employed for the pillboxes are different from a fight on a random battlefield where both sides are evenly vulnerable to fire and so suppressive fire make some sense.
Suppressive fire is of use on a random battlefield to keep the enemy's head down while other comrades move to get a better attacking position. Well the defenders won't be changing position. They will keep their positions in the pillbox so suppressive fire make less sense here.
Our machine gunners should have armoured telescopic sights and therefore only bother actually firing if you have the enemy clearly in your sights and then the first shot is the one that counts.
Some machine guns have a single-shot fire mode with telescopic sights and those are the machine guns we need. Single-shot will most likely be the mode used most often when you spot someone trying to sneak their way past the guns or if you can see a sniper or heavy machine gunner at an effective range, say 1800 metres or less for a heavy machine gun with telescopic sights, less for a lighter machine gun.
I seriously doubt that the enemy would ever do a mass charge across open barbed wire ground which would necessitate firing on full-auto and changing barrels but if they do then fine it is their funeral.
So yes, the gunners would need to know how to change a barrel but if they ever do, I will be questioning their tactics.
If an enemy is blasting away from a machine gun at extreme ineffective range - 2000 metres or more at the pillbox and only the occasional round is even hitting the pillbox then even though it is tempting to return fire blasting back at the position I would not even bother returning fire because that simply gives away your position and may not hit him at extreme range anyway.
Such distant firing is probably to lure the defender to return fire and identify which pillbox is manned, so as to know which pillbox to target with RPGs, recoilless rifles or guided missiles or distant fire could be to distract your attention and rather than fire back, grab your binoculars or night vision and see who is trying to sneak up on the position or past the guns. When you spot them and have an easy kill - then open fire, but in single-shot mode because that is all you will need.
The tactics change if you have a well-armoured position that cannot be suppressed.
I repeat the pillbox machine-gun is not to suppress the enemy. We want the enemy to stick their heads up and get closer to shoot at the pillbox, so the defenders can carefully target them and kill them on single-shot mode. We want the enemy to think they can sneak past the guns so we wait until they are an easy kill and only then take them out.
perform other duties as supervised by the higher ranks.

2. Master Gunner - skills-based promoted ranks for Gunners with additional specialist skills such as

weapons maintenance,
binocular and night-vision maintenance,
vehicle driving and basic maintenance - checking and maintaining tyre pressure, fuel and oil levels, etc.
infantry fighting vehicle specialist
mortar team skills,
first aid,
communications - operating telephone (landline and mobile / cell ) and radio.

Master Gunners get an appropriately and differently designed skills badge and salary increment for each specialist skill learned. So typically that would be a badge with a machine-gun icon for weapons' maintenance, a badge with an APC-icon for vehicle driving and basic maintenance and so on. A Master Gunner with more badges and skills outranks a Master Gunner with fewer badges and skills.

3. Team leader A promoted post. The most experienced and able Gunner in each team of 3 on a GUN - Fortified machine gun nests / pillboxes position.

Team leaders should have multiple specialist skills and in particular the communications specialist skills is one of the required skills to be eligible to become a Team Leader. Team leaders are always the senior ranking members in every 3-man team irrespective of badges and skills. So a Master Gunner with, say, 5 skill badges does not outrank a Team Leader with, say, only 4 skills badges.

4. Shift officer - normally on duty back at the Mobile reaction depot and in command and in radio, mobile (cell) or land-line telephone contact with 4 teams, which is 12 men, on duty for an 8-hour shift. The shift officer acts as a deputy commander for the shift for 4 GUN - Fortified machine gun nests / pillboxes and for the Mobile Reaction Depot.

The Shift Officer is also in radio, mobile (cell) or land-line telephone contact with Shift Officers in neighbouring Mobile reaction depots. The Shift Officer decides whether or not to consult the Depot commander in response to a request for assistance from any of the 4 teams under his command or to a request for assistance from a Shift Officer in a neighbouring Mobile Reaction Depot.

5. Depot commander - in command of one Mobile reaction depot , the vehicle, weapons and everything therein. Commands the 3 Shift officers and 12 teams which totals 39 men under his command. He can declare a depot emergency, and call the off-duty shifts in the mess back on emergency duty.

The Depot Commander can order the depot's vehicle and men to attend and to defend the GUN - Fortified machine gun nests / pillboxes under attack or order mortar teams into action from the Mortar teams' ground.

In an emergency, the Depot Commander notifies his immediate superior officers, the Reaction Captains who are the reaction director and deputy reaction director assigned command responsibility for his Mobile Reaction Depot.


6. Reaction Captain

has some command responsibility for the reactions of 8 neighbouring Mobile Reaction Depots
is the reaction director for the central 4 depots of these 8 neighbouring depots
is the deputy reaction director for the peripheral 4 depots of these 8 neighbouring depots.

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/3508/reactioncommandersscale.jpg

Reaction Captains direct Mobile Reaction Depots (http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/3508/reactioncommandersscale.jpg)

The diagram illustrates how the command responsibility of neighbouring Reaction Captains is organised.

Mobile Reaction Depots 1 & 2
- the reaction director is Reaction Captain C
- the deputy reaction director is Reaction Captain A

Mobile Reaction Depots 3 & 4
- the reaction director is Reaction Captain A
- the deputy reaction director is Reaction Captain C

Mobile Reaction Depots 5 & 6
- the reaction director is Reaction Captain A
- the deputy reaction director is Reaction Captain D

Mobile Reaction Depots 7 & 8
- the reaction director is Reaction Captain D
- the deputy reaction director is Reaction Captain A

Mobile Reaction Depots 9 & 10
- the reaction director is Reaction Captain D
- the deputy reaction director is Reaction Captain B

Mobile Reaction Depots 11 & 12
- the reaction director is Reaction Captain B
- the deputy reaction director is Reaction Captain D

Mobile Reaction Depots 13 & 14
- the reaction director is Reaction Captain B
- the deputy reaction director is Reaction Captain E

Mobile Reaction Depots 15 & 16
- the reaction director is Reaction Captain E
- the deputy reaction director is Reaction Captain B

This overlapping organisation ensures that emergencies which are declared at any Mobile Reaction Depot can be supported if needs be by Reaction Captains with responsibility for the depot under attack ordering neighbouring depots on either side to react to the emergency.

A vehicle is assigned to each Reaction Captain who routinely drives to visit the 8 Mobile Reaction Depots for which he has command responsibility for daily meetings with the Depot Commanders and with the other 2 Reaction Captains he shares depot command responsibility with.

The Reaction Captains can arrange to receive a salute at attention from each off-duty shift twice a week with an opportunity for the Reaction Captains to boost morale by reminding the Gunners that every Reaction Captain has 8 Mobile Reaction Depots and 320 soldiers under his command and that the 2 Reaction Captains with command responsibility for a particular depot have between them 480 soldiers under their command.

So in emergencies the Secure Supply Route Protection Force is well organised to defeat any attack the enemy dares to try against any part of the supply route. They shall not pass! (No passeran!)

The Reaction Captain has a captain's office and quarters adjacent to one of the 4 Mobile Reaction Depots for which he is the reaction director and the Depot Commander of that particular Mobile Reaction Depot also serves as the Reaction Captain's secretary to take telephone calls to the Reaction Captain's Office if he is out of his office and quarters at the time.

Being so mobile in his daily routine, the Reaction Captain must be contactable via radio or mobile (cell) telephone when he is out of his office.

In the event of a major attack, the Reaction Captain will set up a tactical command headquarters at his office to direct the battle and call for further reinforcements from neighbouring Reaction Captain's offices if required.


7. Sector Major
commands a number of Reaction Captains
commands sector assets, such as -
artillery
forward air-controller
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) operator



Staff numbers

Reaction captain's office
1 office every 4 depots

161 men

four depots of forty men (4 x 40 = 160)
plus the Reaction Captain (160 + 1 = 161)


Mobile reaction depot
1 depot every 2 kilometres (1.25 miles)

40 men

three eight-hour shifts of thirteen men, (3 x 13 = 39)
plus the Depot Commander (39 + 1 = 40)

40 men per 2 kilometres = 20 men per kilometre = 32 men per mile

Depot shift
3 shifts per depot

13 men

four three-man gun teams, ( 4 x 3 = 12)
plus the Shift Officer (12 + 1 = 13)


Reserves
Approximate numbers of infantry required including reserves.

For a 25% reserve of 5 reserves per kilometre, 8 reserves per mile
Force including reserves is 25 infantry per kilometre, 40 infantry per mile

For a 50% reserve of 10 reserves per kilometre, 16 reserves per mile
Force including reserves is 30 infantry per kilometre, 48 infantry per mile

Support staff
Infantry deployed in the field or on guard somewhere can require numbers of support staff (such as delivery and rubbish collection, engineers of all kinds, trainers, medical, administration, military policing etc.) which I am told can be multiples of the numbers of deployed infantry they support, depending on the support facilities offered, the quality and efficiency of the support organisation.

I believe the support staff requirements for a static guard force are somewhat different to mobile infantry advancing (or retreating) in a conventional war because the guard force's requirements for fuel and ammunition deliveries are less but a guard force may expect more in terms of base facilities - running water, electricity and so on.

I am not recommending figures for support staff because such numbers are more dependent on the infrastructure of the army and nation concerned and are independent of the details of how the infantry are deployed which is my concern here only. Numbers of support staff are to be filled in by NATO-ISAF and the Afghan government and army themselves later.

Peter Dow
05-04-2013, 08:25 PM
How my plan solves the issues raised in 'Warlord Inc.'


WARLORD, INC. (http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/documents/warlords.pdf)

"In Afghanistan, the U.S. military faces one of the most complicated and difficult supply chains in the history of warfare. The task of feeding, fueling, and arming American troops at over 200 forward operating bases and combat outposts sprinkled across a difficult and hostile terrain with only minimal road infrastructure is nothing short of herculean. In order to accomplish this mission, the Department of Defense employs a hitherto unprecedented logistics model: responsibility for the supply chain is almost entirely outsourced to local truckers and Afghan private security providers.
...
Transporting valuable and sensitive supplies in highly remote and insecure locations requires extraordinary levels of security.
...
RECOMMENDATION 3

Consider the Role of Afghan National Security Forces in Highway Security.

In the future, Afghan security forces will have a role to play in road security. Proposals to reform the convoy security scheme ought to take a medium- to long-term view of the role of Afghan security forces, while developing credible security alternatives that address the immediate U.S. military logistics needs.

RECOMMENDATION 6

Oversee Contracts to Ensure Contract Transparency and Performance.

The Department of Defense needs to provide the personnel and resources required to manage and oversee its trucking and security contracts in Afghanistan. Contracts of this magnitude and of this consequence require travel ‘outside the wire.’ For convoys, that means having the force protection resources necessary for mobility of military logistics personnel to conduct periodic unannounced inspections and ride-alongs."

http://imageshack.us/a/img687/5463/newinsidethewire.jpg


My plan can achieve the "Warlord, Inc." recommendations 3 and 6, not merely to stop extortion and corruption along the supply chain but to gain a further significant advance to NATO-ISAF mission goals.

I propose secure supply route border defences and a dedicated mostly Afghan protection force but, for now, auxiliary to NATO and under NATO command, to man those defences which would achieve all along the main supply routes a level of security which is similar to the security inside a military base or fort.

"Warlord, Inc." uses the NATO-ISAF parlance of "inside the wire" to refer to the security achieved within their own NATO-ISAF bases but to virtually nowhere else in Afghanistan.

It is about time NATO-ISAF and the Afghan government and military were extending that true security "inside the wire" to more of Afghanistan. My secure supply route plan would bring more of Afghanistan "inside the wire" so to speak.

The secure supply route border defences require only authorised persons living inside the secure defences.

The general population sadly may harbour enemy agents and so must be required to live outside the border defences.

Where isolated houses and small villages can be relocated to use a suitable existing supply road then that should be done with compensation for the relocated residents and landowners.

Where the settlements along the old supply route are too big to move then new roads should be built for a new supply route, by-passing those bigger settlements by at least 6 miles.

Peter Dow
05-04-2013, 08:35 PM
WARLORD, INC. (http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/documents/warlords.pdf)
"II. BACKGROUND

Supplying the Troops

Afghanistan … is a landlocked country whose neighbors range from uneasy U.S. allies, such as Pakistan and Uzbekistan, to outright adversaries, such as Iran.
...
The fastest route to Afghanistan is by air. However, the lack of airport infrastructure places significant constraints on the military’s ability to rely on air transport to supply the troops. Afghanistan has only 16 airports with paved runways, and of those, only four are accessible to non-military aircraft (including contractor-operated cargo planes). Air transport is also the most costly shipping option. Thus, while air transport is available, it is limited to personnel and high-priority cargo. Only about 20 percent of cargo reaches Afghanistan by air."

Ideally then for the future, NATO-ISAF could aim to have the capacity to supply fully 100 percent of its cargo by air by increasing by 5-fold the airport infrastructure and capacity of Afghanistan, building perhaps one or two more big hub airports around the country or a few more long runways and additional cargo handling facilities at existing airports like Bagram or Kandahar - to accept the incoming international flights, such as Hercules C-130s, then from those large hub airports transfer the cargo into smaller planes to fly from new short runways at those few hub airports on to dozens of new smaller airports all around Afghanistan.

To pay for this, money can be reallocated to airport construction by rationalising some of the 200 most expensive and remote forward operating bases (FOBs) and combat outposts. Close those which cost more than they are worth - such as the redundant and strategically irrelevant FOBs along the Afghanistan / Pakistan border.

Retreat to the really important bases, build airfields for them and build secure supply route defences to and from them and that's a very strong defensive position from which to launch offensive operations against the enemy.

No longer will the legitimate military and civilian traffic require the permission of warlords to travel along Afghanistan's highways.

Securing an air base. Example - Camp Bastion / Camp Leatherneck

http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/4303/bastionafghanistan.jpg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1MZ5g6rkQY

Bastion Airport (NATO Channel on YouTube) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1MZ5g6rkQY)

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/2526/afghanistanbastion.jpg





Wikipedia: "Camp Bastion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Bastion) is the main British military base in Afghanistan. It is situated northwest of Lashkar Gah, the capital of Helmand Province.

It is the largest British overseas military camp built since World War II.


Ministry of Defence News. "Camp Bastion doubles in size" (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EstateAndEnvironment/CampBastionDoublesInSize.htm)

Camp Bastion, the lynchpin of British, and increasingly American, operations in Helmand, is a desert metropolis, complete with airport, that is expanding at a remarkable pace. Report by Sharon Kean.

Bastion exists for one reason: to be the logistics hub for operations in Helmand. Supply convoys and armoured patrols regularly leave its heavily-defended gates. They support the military forward operating bases, patrol bases and checkpoints spread across Helmand province."


Well here's another reason for Bastion to exist - to become a logistics hub for operations across Afghanistan, well beyond Helmand province.


UK GOV - INSIDE GOVERNMENT (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/royal-engineers-are-busy-building-bastion)
Royal Engineers are busy building Bastion

Colonel Mathie said
"The biggest project is the airfield, a new runway and air traffic control tower. When it's finished we'll be able to put our TriStar airliners straight in here instead of going to Kandahar, allowing us to get strategic air traffic into Bastion. That will be a big development for us."


With strategic airlift capacity, think strategically. A few more runways like the new longer runway at Bastion and Afghanistan's airfield infrastructure would be sufficient for all of NATO-ISAF force supplies to reach Afghanistan by air - removing dependence and vulnerability on Pakistan's land routes and eliminating the extortion and corruption along the Afghanistan ground supply chain, as detailed in Warlord, Inc..

After supplies are landed at the few huge hub airports - Bagram, Kandahar and Bastion - cargo could be transferred into smaller airplanes using adjacent smaller runways for connecting flights out to smaller airfields associated with NATO-ISAF forward operating bases.

Whether by luck or by design Bastion is well chosen in being far from a population centre which makes it politically feasible to impose a rigorous security exclusion zone on the ground for many miles around the airport.

Controlling the ground far around a military airport is very necessary to defend the incoming aircraft against missile attack by ensuring no enemy can get close enough to launch a missile anywhere near below where the planes descend to land.

Landing at night is not a sufficient defence. Aircraft engines and their exhaust jets are very hot and infra-red shines just as brightly at night for missiles to lock on to.

We cannot assume that the Taliban will be unable to source the most advanced ground-to-air missiles. We should assume they will source such missiles and take the necessary security precautions.

So at Bastion NATO-ISAF must control the ground in a vast security perimeter out to the horizon and beyond which means closing the nearby road to Afghan traffic and providing an alternative circuitous route for civilian traffic.

I need hardly mention the military, economic and political disaster of allowing the enemy to bring down one of our big aircraft. So this must not be allowed to happen. Therefore a very wide secure ground exclusion zone around Bastion should be imposed.

In addition, I need hardly remind people of Al Qaeda's willingness to use aircraft themselves as weapons and therefore airport air defences need to be operational and alert at all times, not just when scheduled aircraft are landing.

The progress at Bastion is very promising for the whole Afghanistan mission. It shows the way ahead.

We can contemplate one day removing the constraints limiting NATO-ISAF supplies reaching Afghanistan by air. From a limit of about 20 percent now, I foresee a 100 percent supply-into-Afghanistan-by-air strategy as both feasible in principle and a desirable long term aim.

Peter Dow
05-04-2013, 08:37 PM
Securing the land around Camp Bastion

I have a strategic plan for improved perimeter defences for our military bases such as Camp Bastion. I will post that strategic plan next but it requires a lot of additional fortifications which would take a long time to get approval for and then longer to build. Meantime, there is the important question of how should Bastion be defended right now? What are the best defensive tactics, given we are where we are?


UK Forces Afghanistan Blog - RAF protecting Camp Bastion, June 27, 2012 (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/RafProtectingCampBastion.htm)

Photograph: 51 Squadron RAF Regiment personnel on patrol.

Number 5 RAF Force Protection Wing, .. have taken responsibility for the security of the Camp Bastion complex, one of the busiest airfields in the world with over 28,000 people working on-site. They are also responsible for patrolling the surrounding area, covering over 600 square kilometres, to prevent insurgent attacks against the airfield and its personnel.

So it matters that Camp Bastion is well defended and I want to make sure we are using the correct tactics to secure the land around any airfield camp we are defending.

So I have some new comments to make which occurred to me after seeing that photograph of our soldiers patrolling through poppy fields. I am wondering if there are poppy fields in that 600 square kilometres around Camp Bastion?

Anyway, we don't want or need any high vegetation around the air field which would allow insurgents cover to sneak close to the base, either to launch missile attacks or to plant anti-personnel mines, I.E.D.s or anything else.

Much better if the land is cleared of all tall vegetation so that it is much easier to keep clear of threats. Short grass is good.

That may mean buying out farmers who are growing crops, buying their land around the camp, compensating them but only if they are growing worthwhile crops.

If they are growing poppy fields then they don't deserve compensation in my book.

Either way there is a big job for our engineers to clear the land all around the camp of all cover useful to an enemy. So that's clearing all the 600 square kilometres which was mentioned as being patrolled by our forces.

It is a big job to keep such a large area of land free of cover and yes it is OK to hire local Afghan labour to help with keeping the vegetation down. After all, we will have put some local farmers out of living so they'll be looking for employment.

It might be an idea to have grazing animals on the land to keep the vegetation down but I would not be surprised if the Taliban shoot grazing animals if they can but if they do that's a reminder to us that the Taliban are still out there if a reminder is ever needed.

I assume in a dry land like Afghanistan that burning vegetation is easily done and that'll be the easiest way to clear the land I suspect. So to speak, I approve a "scorched earth" policy for perimeter defences.

At night when it is not so easy to distinguish between a farmer tending his grazing animals and an insurgent pretending to be that, I suggest that the 600 square kilometres should be an exclusion zone for everyone except Camp Bastion personnel. So all local Afghan workers who clear vegetation during the day need to go back to homes outside the 600 square kilometres every night.

This is the attitude NATO - ISAF and our base security forces need to take. We need to take ownership of all the 600 square kilometres of land which we are patrolling around Camp Bastion and optimise it for security.

It would be the same outrage if the Afghan government dares to suggest that we don't take ownership of the surrounding land, don't clear the land, and should instead allow existing cover for insurgents in land surrounding Camp Bastion as it would be if the Afghan government dared to suggest that we open the doors of the airbase itself to the Taliban.


Our biggest airbases attacked!

In Afghanistan, the enemy Taliban forces have attacked supposedly well-defended bases such as Bagram and Bastion bases.


HUffington Post: Afghanistan Attacks: Insurgents Attack Bagram Air Base (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/afghanistan-attacks_n_1874017.html)

KABUL, Afghanistan -- Afghan insurgents bombarded a U.S. base and destroyed a NATO helicopter, killing three Afghan intelligence employees, officials said Tuesday. There were also NATO personnel aboard and wounded, the coalition said without providing further details.


BBC: Camp Bastion assault: Two US marines die in 'Taliban revenge' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19608561)
Aircraft and buildings were damaged but Nato said its forces killed 18 of the insurgents and captured one.
...
Nato officials say insurgents used small arms, rockets and mortars in the attack on Camp Bastion which took place at about 22:00 on Friday (17:30 GMT), under cover of darkness.

So clearly our bases haven't been well designed and constructed to afford the best security possible; our bases have small and flimsy perimeter defences which did not stand the test of enemy attacks.

Can we do better? Yes!

Peter Dow
05-04-2013, 08:44 PM
Perimeter defences plan for a military base

http://imageshack.us/a/img835/9007/basedefence2768.jpg (http://imageshack.us/a/img99/2874/basedefence2.jpg)
Click for LARGER image (http://imageshack.us/a/img99/2874/basedefence2.jpg)

This diagram shows my suggested layout for the perimeter defences for a military base.

The diagram illustrates the basic plan for a small base, with no runways, and a Central Base area of diameter about 1 kilometre or 5/8th of mile.

For larger bases such as Camp Bastion with central Base area which is miles wide this plan can be adapted by making the lines of perimeter defences longer and adding more gun towers, gunners etc

Explanation of the diagram features.

Central Base - the green disc in the diagram represents the central well-defended area of the military base, or "Green Zone" where various buildings, vehicles and personnel of the base are normally situated.

Autocannon, machine gun & missile towers - the red and pink dots represent static, armoured fortifications or towers for one autocannon, machine gun and anti-tank missiles and its 3-man team of gunners which encircle the base at a distance of about 6 miles or 10 kilometres from the edge of the central Base. The spacing between adjacent gun towers is about 333 metres or 333 yards.

http://imageshack.us/a/img839/8237/guntowerc.jpg
The Pyramid of Cestius, Rome, photoshopped into a gun tower

The idea of gun towers is to give the gunner a good view of the desert terrain which is unlikely to be completely flat and dips in the ground could otherwise provide cover for attacking mortar teams. Gun towers also enable the gunners easily to see over and beyond any obstacles in the vehicle barrier into the Threat Zone. The gun towers should be robust enough so that they could take a number of artillery shells without collapsing.

The plan calls for one team of gunners per tower serving on base. The gunners are organised into 3 duty shifts of at least 8 hours and so normally only 1 in 3 of the towers will be manned at any one time. The gunners spend their off-duty time in the central Base where their quarters are situated.

If, when and where the perimeter defences are attacked by the enemy, the off-duty gunners can be called back on emergency duty as required by their officers.

There would be a minimum of about 200 gun towers required and for each tower I propose -

http://imageshack.us/a/img823/8395/bradleyturret.jpg


a 25mm cannon, which typically have a range out to 2.5 km / 1.5 miles with
a 12.7mm (0.5") or 7.62mm machine gun back-up.
anti-tank missiles, such as TOW (Tube-launched, Optically-tracked, Wire command data-link) guided missiles

The tower's weapons are mounted into some kind of swivelling gun turret, with working parts like the gun turret on top of an infantry fighting vehicle maybe.

A cost-effective option might be to buy off-the-shelf turrets which are already in mass production for vehicles like the Bradley IFV with some additional armour capped on top of it because it doesn't need to be light, just very strong against incoming mortar or artillery fire.

The one issue there might be with IVF turrets is that it really needs lower gun elevation than is standard for an IFV turret. IFV guns often don't dip below -10 degrees below the horizontal.

http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/europe/italy/weapons/hitfist/Hitfist_light_turret_25mm_30mm_gun_for_armoured_in fantry_fighting_vehicle_Oto_melara_Italian_defence _industry_military_technology_640.jpg

That's not ideal because the gun turrets are going to be much higher off the ground than they would be in an IVF and ideally the gunners ought to be able to target the ground beneath them as well as the ground hundreds of metres away.

Naval ship mounted cannons tend to dip lower, down to -20 degrees and that would be better, but naval cannons are not usually well armoured for the gunner's protection.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_25mm_mk38_pic.jpg

They do come in remotely operated versions which is an interesting option to consider.

http://www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURFACE/Mk-38-machine-gun-system-Dateien/image037.jpg

Infantry barriers - barbed wire and anti-personnel mines to stop enemy infantry from advancing into the centre of the base.

Vehicle barriers - obstacles and anti-tank mines which prevent enemy vehicles from advancing into the centre of the base.

Reaction Force Zone - Quick reaction forces deploy in armoured vehicles from the central base into the Reaction Force Zone to fire at enemy attacking forces.

Threat Zone - A circumferential military zone around the perimeter defences where the base defenders may assume a hostile intent on the part of uninvited intruders into the Threat Zone and from where locals are forbidden and variously warned off from intruding upon. This land is occupied or leased to the military base and is closely watched using surveillance technology. Warning shots or sub-lethal rounds may be fired upon suspected innocent intruders and identified enemy forces can be fired upon to kill without warning.

The diagram represents a Threat Zone which extends to 10 miles / 16 kilometres from the edge of the central Base. The plan therefore recommends that it is inappropriate to site a well-defended base within 10 miles of an urban area or a public highway which would cause local people and local traffic to enter into the defined Threat Zone routinely making the early detection of real threats difficult to distinguish.

A large Threat Zone is desirable for security purposes because it makes for a safer perimeter defence but does add significantly to the land requirements of the base therefore the availability of a wide area of undeveloped land is ideal when choosing a location for the construction of a new military base.

Some existing military bases are located close to urban areas where a large Threat Zone cannot be defined and this is likely to make such bases much less secure.

Access road Road to access the base from the surrounding road network.

STOP police control barrier Military police stop traffic wishing to enter the base and perform final checks that visitors and loads are authorised to proceed. The control barriers prevent terrorists driving off the road and prevent vehicles proceeding without permission.

The control barrier fortifications need to be very robust so as to survive an enemy truck bomb.

Trust Zone People, vehicles or buildings in the Trust Zone which is everywhere outside of the Threat Zone are assumed to be trustworthy and non-threatening in so far as the base defenders are concerned.

People in the Trust Zone are assumed to be respecting the base's security and the base defenders treat people in the Trust Zone with the same mutual respect for their own security.

Protestors
Protestors who wish to demonstrate for whatever reason their political viewpoints are allowed to approach the base as far as the Warning Line which surrounds the Threat Zone but it is the responsibility of the local authorities to ensure that protestors do not intrude into the Threat Zone without invitation otherwise a hostile intent may be assumed and defensive actions taken.

Defence force For the smallest bases, this plan calls for a defence force of three serving companies of gunners - one company for each of the 3 shifts.

One company needs at least 200 gunners and their officers so 3 companies total at least 600 gunners and their officers. In addition, military and support personnel are needed for other duties such as policing visitors, cooking, vehicle and plant maintenance engineers, medical, supplies storage & management, camp tidying up, latrine digging, reserves etc.

The defence force required would be of an infantry battalion size of perhaps of about 800 soldiers / marines and support personnel in total and so the base defence force commander would likely be ranked at Lieutenant Colonel or higher.

Peter Dow
05-04-2013, 08:45 PM
Split up the Afghan green force into two distinct forces -


a national Afghan army which Afghans pay for and is commanded by the Afghan president and whichever general he/she wants to appoint. (“dark green”)


a NATO-ISAF auxiliary force of Afghans and others, funded by the US and other NATO countries and international donors. This would be commanded by our generals. (“light green”)


The Afghan National Army, the "green" force is rotten, if not to its core then to much of the periphery. Some of the green is more like gangrene (gan-green, get it? )

The problem I see is in the disconnect between the political control (Karzai) and the funding (mostly from the USA but anyway internationally funded).


Wikipedia: Afghan National Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_National_Army#Current_status)
The new Afghan National Army was founded with the issue of a decree by President Hamid Karzai on December 1, 2002

Karzai as the "duly" (ahem) elected president of Afghanistan is perfectly entitled to run an Afghan national army but Afghans should pay for that themselves.

Afghanistan is a poor nation and could not afford that much of an army but if they paid for it themselves, at least the Afghan national army would likely be honest, accountable to Afghans and take on limited tasks - secure the presidential palace, military headquarters and might be up to defending the capital Kabul and surrounding land, maybe.

Now the issue is this - to secure all of Afghanistan, even to secure our supply routes, we need lots of troops and it makes sense to have some kind of Afghan force to help us - but we need a bigger and better green force than the Afghans can afford to pay for. (Also why would a national Afghan force want to prioritise defending our supply routes? They wouldn't want to.)

So the West, NATO needs to pay for some green Afghan forces - that's a good idea, if, if, if, if and only if, those green forces we are paying for are auxiliary to NATO-ISAF - run by NATO-ISAF - under the control of a NATO general, maybe an American general if you could find a good one to do it.

That way we would only recruit capable Afghans into the green force we pay for and interact with daily. We'd be sure our green troops were loyal - wouldn't shoot our blue troops.

No way would we have any incentive to spend our own money on disloyal incapable Afghans in green uniform so we would not do it, if we had political and military control over our green forces, which we would have if they were called "The NATO-ISAF Afghan auxiliary force" - with no pretence of them being an Afghan national force under Karzai.

However, some idiot has come up with the idea of paying Afghans to have an army funded by us but controlled by Karzai so there is no accountability. The people in charge, deciding who to recruit, can recruit bad soldiers because they get paid more by the US for soldiers, whether they be bad soldiers or not.

Why wouldn't Karzai and this guy

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3a/Sher_Mohammad_Karimi_in_2010.jpg/250px-Sher_Mohammad_Karimi_in_2010.jpg
Lt. Gen. Sher Mohammad Karim, Commander of the Afghan National Army

recruit junkies, thieves, murderers and agents for the Taliban into the Afghan National Army?

Why wouldn't they recruit anybody they can find into the Afghan national army if, for every soldier they can name, they get paid more US dollars?

Where's the incentive for Karzai and Karim to recruit only good soldiers? There isn't any incentive at all.

Again the US ends up funding corruption.

If a green soldier kills a blue then who gets held responsible in the chain of command?

Nobody gets held responsible.

Who should get held responsible? The US and NATO should. We should blame ourselves for paying anything for an army which we do not have any political control over.

What on earth does Panetta (and what did Gates before him) think he is (was) doing trusting this guy Karzai and his general Karim with billions of US tax-payer dollars to pay for a green army?

Why are NATO defence ministers happy with the poor leadership from NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen and the NATO Supreme Allied Commander Admiral James Stavridis? Shouldn't the NATO leaders have spotted this fatal flaw in green troop organisation and tried to re-organise green forces as I suggest here, if they know what they are doing (which they don't)?

The competent answer to green on blue attacks is to split up the Afghan army into two distinct forces -


a national Afghan army which Afghans pay for and is commanded by the Afghan president and whichever general he/she wants to appoint. (dark green)
a NATO-ISAF auxiliary force of Afghans, funded by the US and other NATO counties and international donors. This would be commanded by our generals. (light green)


So there should be two green armies - each of a different shade of green. Karzai's dark green he would use to defend himself and his capital. Our light green we would use to defend our supply routes and to support our operations in Afghanistan generally.

Only when the Afghan economy had grown to the point that they could afford to pay for a big enough army to defend the whole country would we transfer our light green army over to Afghan national control and then we could leave Afghanistan in the hands of Afghans.

So long as we are paying for an Afghan force we must retain political control over it otherwise it fuels corruption and does little or nothing to help to fight the enemy we are trying to defeat and the green-on-blue attacks simply undermine political support for the whole Afghanistan / Pakistan mission.

Peter Dow
05-04-2013, 08:52 PM
The requirement to defend military supply lines in war, to expect the enemy to attack and to attempt to cut any long supply lines is a basic part of classical military strategy.

If there was ever to be a sustained resistance to our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan then any competent military strategist could have predicted that the enemy would wish to attack our supply lines in Iraq and Afghanistan and if we didn't do the correct thing according to classical military strategy and defend those supply lines then it was inevitable that the enemy would mine and ambush our undefended, or poorly defended, supply lines.

Now the US does indeed have academic military experts who do indeed know the importance of this requirement in war and have published relevant articles on the internet, such as this fine example -


Army Logistician
http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/NovDec08/masthead_images/masthead_760.gif
Supply Line Warfare by Dr. Cliff Welborn (http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/NovDec08/spplyline_war.html)

The U.S. military has also disrupted the enemy’s supply chain to weaken its fighting capabilities. When we think of a military supply line, we often think of the logistics considerations necessary to keep our own supply chain flowing. However, just as important to military success are tactics for disrupting the enemy supply line. A defensive strategy is to protect our own supply chain; an offensive strategy is to inhibit the supply chain of our enemy. The United States has used both offensive and defensive strategies in many wars, including the Revolutionary War in the 1770s and 1780s, the Civil War in the 1860s, the Plains Indian Wars in the late 19th century, World War II in the 1940s, and the Vietnam War in the 1960s and 1970s.

but that ancient yet essential military knowledge, that ought to be taught to every officer at every military academy, doesn't seem to be in the brains of the US, British or other NATO generals, who seem to think "patrolling" or "ever bigger MRAPs" is a better plan to try to keep our soldiers safe on otherwise undefended supply routes.

Actually, the better plan is simply establishing a secure perimeter around your supply route which is watched 24/7 from static guard posts all along the route, either side of the route, and a mobile reaction force to reinforce wherever and whenever the enemy concentrates to attack the supply route.

I've suggested in this thread a detailed plan to defend supply routes in Afghanistan but no doubt there are many variations on that theme.

Don't get me wrong, big MRAPs have their uses as a back-up if and when the enemy makes it through the defended perimeter of a supply line but there does clearly need to be a secure perimeter established in the first place otherwise your supply routes remain effectively uncleared territory and anything on the route not protected by tons of armour is simply easy meat for the enemy.

Certain items in my plan, about seizing satellites and what to bomb in Pakistan is new, specific intelligence for the war on terror and is maybe a bit much to expect on day one from our military.

But for military leaders not to know the requirement to defend supply routes, and therefore foolishly to lead our soldiers to die from enemy road side bombs and ambushes - this is unforgivable ignorance on the part of our generals, defense secretaries and Pentagon, NATO and UK MOD civilian support military "experts".

Those in charge don't seem to know the military basics. It's like the donkey-generals who led brave lion-soldiers to their deaths advancing on foot against machine gun nests as in world war 1 - all over again.

It's another famous military disaster and it is no way to win a war (even though we will likely win this war on terror eventually but at a very high cost in blood and treasure.)


Why we need a better strategy to cut down our losses to the likes of road-side bombs and ambushes on supply roads, of which they have been many.

Wikipedia: Coalition deaths in Afghanistan by country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a4/Flag_of_the_United_States.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_United_States.svg.png USA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States): 2,084* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan#Out-of-country_deaths_related_to_the_war)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/ae/Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg.png UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom): 441
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cf/Flag_of_Canada.svg/22px-Flag_of_Canada.svg.png Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada): 158* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan#Out-of-country_deaths_related_to_the_war)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c3/Flag_of_France.svg/22px-Flag_of_France.svg.png France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France): 88
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/ba/Flag_of_Germany.svg/22px-Flag_of_Germany.svg.png Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany): 56
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/03/Flag_of_Italy.svg/22px-Flag_of_Italy.svg.png Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy): 52
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Flag_of_Denmark.svg/22px-Flag_of_Denmark.svg.png Denmark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark): 43
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b9/Flag_of_Australia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Australia.svg.png Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia): 39
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/12/Flag_of_Poland.svg/22px-Flag_of_Poland.svg.png Poland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland): 39
Spain: 36*
Netherlands: 25
Romania: 20
Georgia: 19
Turkey: 14
New Zealand: 10
Norway: 10
Estonia: 9
Hungary: 7
Sweden: 5
Czech Republic: 5
Latvia: 3
Finland: 2
Jordan: 2
Portugal: 2
South Korea: 2
Albania: 1
Belgium: 1
Lithuania: 1
TOTAL: 3,173

We didn't have to lose so many. If our strategy had been right from day one, many of those would be alive today. Also if we are paying $4 billion per year for Afghan forces even after most of our troops come home in 2014, then we ought to give them a plan that can work and not lose them lots of soldiers to road-side bombs, ambushes and the rest.

Max Power
05-04-2013, 09:15 PM
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/154/912/berneydidnotread.gif?1318992465

Banned
05-06-2013, 11:41 PM
Anyway, we don't want or need any high vegetation around the air field which would allow insurgents cover to sneak close to the base, either to launch missile attacks or to plant anti-personnel mines, I.E.D.s or anything else.

Much better if the land is cleared of all tall vegetation so that it is much easier to keep clear of threats. Short grass is good.

YOU'RE A GENIUS!!!!

Oh wait, Camp Bastion is already on relatively flat terrain, with no major vegetation or concealment within several kilometers.

USMC0341
05-07-2013, 12:21 AM
Somebody got a little worked up after a hardcore game of Axis and Allies!!

Not replying to that giant ass post, but I'm talking to you RFD Jr (because he likes to write also, but keeps his 1000 words a day to publications)

Banned
05-07-2013, 12:29 AM
Somebody got a little worked up after a hardcore game of Axis and Allies!!


I think he has just single-handedly won the war on terror. He is also the first person to ever figure out the way to effectively defend a FOB.

Peter Dow
12-12-2013, 03:01 PM
State sponsors of terror have to clean up their act, says Condoleezza

Link to Hindustan Times website, showing the link where it goes here. This is a very long link but the beginning of the link is shown to the Hindustan Times . com website. I hope this is OK?

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/hindustantimesleadershipsummit2013/state-sponsors-of-terror-have-to-clean-up-their-act-condoleezza-rice/article1-1160050.aspx


The leadership of countries that practice “embedded terrorism” – state sponsored terrorism – have to be told they must “clean up”, said former US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice at the Hindustan Times Leadership Summit. The US policy towards state sponsors of terrorism, she said, which includes Pakistan, has been to say “you don’t have an option” about dealing with this terrorism.

http://s25.postimg.org/4meyaqtn3/Condi_Hindustantimes.jpg
Former US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice speaks during the Hindustan Times Leadership Summit 2013 in New Delhi.

Rice, who delivered the keynote address at the summit’s second day, said one has to be nuanced in responding to state-sponsored terror. Pakistan is a country that turns a blind eye to groups within its borders who practice terrorism, Rice noted. But their system can be mobilised to take action against terrorists with the right pressure and persuasion.

“I came here after the Mumbai attacks and then told (former) Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari: what has happened here is clearly unacceptable and Pakistan is responsible,” said Rice. She admitted this does not work quickly. “This is a long-term problem, it can’t be turned around quickly but over decades.”

Rice, one of the authors of the Indo-US nuclear deal, said that the Indo-US relationship “was without limits” because the two countries shared both common interests and values.

She listed some of the interests she saw shared by India and the US: a world safe from terrorism, stability in South and Central Asia, energy security, preserving an international system based on rule of law.
For the full story visit the Hindustan Times website. Please use the link given above.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nbs-hZ8xl_0

Condoleezza Rice is like a provost of the whole world! Condi handed over the provost job at Stanford University to one of her helpers long ago, though she still works as a professor at Stanford.

I do wish Condi would not be so patient with Pakistan though. I don't think the world can afford to wait decades for Pakistan to put its own house in order. I don't think the Pakistani politicians are strong enough when faced with an obstinate Pakistani state which sees some purpose in sponsoring terrorism.

I would like in future to hear of Condi recommending that the world take a much tougher approach with Pakistan, an "iron fist" approach, so to speak, led by the US and its NATO allies, and hopefully with India's support, to force Pakistan more quickly to confront the state sponsors of terrorism - generals and former generals of the Pakistani military who dictate military policy behind the scenes in Pakistan.

This could involve suspending aid to Pakistan, international arrest warrants for those state-sponsors of terror Pakistani generals and former generals, raids like the raid to get Bin Laden but against those in the Pakistani state who were sheltering Bin Laden, assassination missions against those terror generals and former generals, more drone attacks, targeted missile or bombing air raids, seizing control over Pakistan's satellite broadcasting to call for the arrest of all involved in sponsoring terror and so on.

I would not heed any complaints from the Pakistani state which is not putting its own house in order. I would not be impressed by any threats Pakistan made about blocking supplies into Afghanistan. We would like the honest people in the Pakistan military to take action against those in the Pakistani military, such as the ISI, who have long been dishonest sponsors of terrorism.

The world needs to pressure Pakistan to make the reality that for the honest Pakistani military it will be an easier course of action to confront their dishonest comrades than daring to confront the rest of the world about any actions we take to raise the pressure on Pakistan.

I would even be prepared to raise military tensions to a level that was last seen in the Cuban missile crisis with US forces on high military alert.

No I would not like to see a nuclear war which would hurt many Pakistani civilians. We love the people of Pakistan but it is in their interests for someone to take a tough stance against the state sponsors of terrorism in Pakistan because that terrorism is, as often as not, turned against the people of Pakistan with their own politicians and leaders being targeted.

The exact measures to be taken are not really my point. Those are up for discussion and modification as required.

My real point is the pressure on Pakistan needs to be stepped up 100 fold by the West led by the US and NATO and with the support of India. No more softly, softly.

This would be my advice to our dearly beloved Condoleezza Rice. No-one inspires me more than she. No-one is better placed to decide on what is good advice and what is not. I trust her judgement but I want her to hear my advice.

The AfPak Mission

AfPak Mission Logo

http://s25.postimg.org/ihd8t7o27/afpakmissionart.jpg

AfPak Mission links

Mission channel http://www.youtube.com/user/AfpakMission

AfPak Mission twitter http://twitter.com/AfPakMission

AfPak Mission forum http://scot.tk/forum/viewforum.php?f=26

AfPak Mission flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/afpakmission/

AfPak Mission blog http://peterdow.wordpress.com/category/afghanistan/


AfPak Mission statement

Strategic advice for the West involved with the Afghanistan - Pakistan theatre in the war on terror.

Trying to help NATO & ISAF do a good job against the enemy Taliban, to help the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan get good government and to defend the rest of the world from terrorism organised from there.

Noting that by abusing the Pakistani military intelligence service, the ISI, traitor generals have long politically dictated deep state support for the Taliban against the Pakistani people's representatives and elected governments.

Not forgetting that the Jihadis get much of their funding from Saudi Arabia. Not forgetting either that Western leaders are still bowing down to the very same Saudi king whose kingdom is funding jihad against us, just to keep selling them stuff in return for the oil we "need" to buy from them.

Questions? :coolanim:

Mjölnir
12-12-2013, 03:30 PM
hidden / embedded links have been removed. Please consult the community guidelines:

Hyperlinks
Including links to informative and helpful sites is part of Internet communication. Choosing to click on a link is your decision. We do not screen links. However, posts may be removed if a hyperlink is not in the following format -- www.wheredoesthislinkgo.com or .org or any number of acceptable addresses. The key here is no hidden agendas. Tell us where the link goes so our members may make informed decisions on whether to click or not. Remember: We do not screen links in posts, but may remove a post if the link is determined to be inappropriate.

Peter Dow
12-12-2013, 03:36 PM
hidden / embedded links have been removed. Please consult the community guidelines:

Hyperlinks
Including links to informative and helpful sites is part of Internet communication. Choosing to click on a link is your decision. We do not screen links. However, posts may be removed if a hyperlink is not in the following format -- www.wheredoesthislinkgo.com or .org or any number of acceptable addresses. The key here is no hidden agendas. Tell us where the link goes so our members may make informed decisions on whether to click or not. Remember: We do not screen links in posts, but may remove a post if the link is determined to be inappropriate.
Sorry about that. Sure, no problem I can put my links in any format you like. Will try again by editing my post. Please help me stay in accordance with your rules here. Thanks!

TJMAC77SP
12-12-2013, 05:32 PM
Sorry about that. Sure, no problem I can put my links in any format you like. Will try again by editing my post. Please help me stay in accordance with your rules here. Thanks!

Peter,

I am a little puzzled by the uniform you are wearing. Can you enlighten the MTF readers as to what military (or organization) wears that uniform?

Peter Dow
12-12-2013, 06:00 PM
Peter,

I am a little puzzled by the uniform you are wearing. Can you enlighten the MTF readers as to what military (or organization) wears that uniform?

It's a one-off outfit in the style of a military uniform yes but because it is a one-off, unique, no-one else wearing exactly this style of outfit, then strictly speaking, it's not a "uniform" as such because it is not uniformly the same as other people's outfits. Despite that, that it is not really a uniform, just in the style of a uniform, nevertheless people keep calling it "a uniform" so I have to keep correcting them. It gets a bit boring but that's OK.

Also, I'm not wearing it just now. Very rarely do I wear it. Special occasions, only.

If you are interested in my outfit, I've written a web-page about my outfit which I am quoting here and here's a link if you need one but it's all posted here anyway http://scot.tk/outfit.htm

http://scot.tk/wristprotectgloves2.jpg

http://scot.tk/mwithwallsmall30q610.jpg



Peter's Standard Bearer Outfit

As to why there should be so much curiosity about this I am not quite sure? Yet I have received so many comments and questions about what I am wearing in many of the photographs in my Scottish National Standard Bearer website that I think it will save me time in the long run if I produce a web-page about this which I can link to whenever the issue arises.

The Standard Bearer outfit which I wear on the rare occasions when I am doing some high profile campaigning is intended to be functional and the function is to complement my duties as a Scottish National Standard Bearer as regards the political and military functions which I have defined for the modern era in this website.

I have adapted a military-style jacket obtained from an army surplus shop. Clearly, it is not a "uniform" because as a unique custom-made outfit, it is not uniformly the same as clothing worn by anyone else.

Badges

The shoulder and chest Lion Rampant ("Scottish National Standard") badges were bought off the shelf. The Scotland flag lapel badges were made by a local company and the white border around the traditional St. Andrew's cross ("Saltire") is simply a manufacturing artefact rather than by design. The "DOW" name badge was home-made from items available from a hardware shop.

Republican red arm-band

The red arm band is a traditional method whereby socialists can identify themselves in situations where a threat to order may arise - when stewarding a demonstration or large public meeting or less frequently these days, in street-fighting against fascists.

For example, when a member of the Labour Party in Glasgow in the late 1980s, I wore a red arm-band while serving as a steward at a big public meeting addressed by Tony Benn.

Often the arm-band is simply a strip of red cloth tied around normal clothing. This is the inspiration for the slightly neater tailored version on my jacket.

In passing, I would of course reject any comparison with the use by Nazis of a red-arm-band-with-Nazi-swastika worn as part of some Nazi uniforms.

Real socialists had copyright on red arm bands long before the Nazis were thought of. The Nazis abused words as well as people, and they had no legitimate claim to the words "socialist", "nationalist" or the colour red.

I have thoughtfully written the word "REPUBLICAN" on the arm band, so that I could not be mistaken for one of the Queen's officers, and even if Labour MPs and MSPs swear allegiance to the UK monarch, I certainly do not, and so that I should not be mistaken for maybe a Salvation Army variation or para-medic or something.

Co-incidentally or not, the American republican party's colour is red and I would say I tend to be a more enthusiastic supporter of American republicans like Condoleezza Rice than do other Scottish, British and European socialists, so once again the word "REPUBLICAN" serves me well.

My outfit represents I believe my political roots in socialism and republicanism from where I began my journey to Scottish nationalism - and therefore it is not splendidly, overtly Scottish, with a kilt and so on, as you might see worn by the Scottish military.

I am not saying there is anything wrong with current Scottish military uniforms or anything, it is simply that I wish to be seen to reject the whole notion that if Prince Charles is in a kilt or some other royal dresses the same as a traditional Scottish soldier, that somehow makes that royal "one of us Scots" or loyal to Scotland when in fact he and his family are the true enemies of the Scots, however they dress.

Red trousers

Republican socialist red trousers - wearing this colour of trousers saves me from having to carry the people's Red Flag, first dyed red by the blood of socialist martyrs, as well as the Lion Rampant, Scottish National Standard. After all, I only have one pair of hands.


So I trust that enlightens readers. No military (or organisation) wears it. I wear it and like I say in my signature, I'm a writer and campaigner.




Also, it makes no sense as you seem to imagine that there could possibly be a military organisation I was already a member of and the war on terror had not been won long ago. I'm a winner of wars and the only way we as NATO and the West are taking so long to win this war is because I'm advising from the outside of the military (and being ignored), not leading from the inside of the military (and being taken seriously).

TJMAC77SP
12-12-2013, 10:51 PM
It's a one-off outfit in the style of a military uniform yes but because it is a one-off, unique, no-one else wearing exactly this style of outfit, then strictly speaking, it's not a "uniform" as such because it is not uniformly the same as other people's outfits. Despite that, that it is not really a uniform, just in the style of a uniform, nevertheless people keep calling it "a uniform" so I have to keep correcting them. It gets a bit boring but that's OK.

Also, I'm not wearing it just now. Very rarely do I wear it. Special occasions, only.

If you are interested in my outfit, I've written a web-page about my outfit which I am quoting here and here's a link if you need one but it's all posted here anyway





Peter's Standard Bearer Outfit

As to why there should be so much curiosity about this I am not quite sure? Yet I have received so many comments and questions about what I am wearing in many of the photographs in my Scottish National Standard Bearer website that I think it will save me time in the long run if I produce a web-page about this which I can link to whenever the issue arises.

The Standard Bearer outfit which I wear on the rare occasions when I am doing some high profile campaigning is intended to be functional and the function is to complement my duties as a Scottish National Standard Bearer as regards the political and military functions which I have defined for the modern era in this website.

I have adapted a military-style jacket obtained from an army surplus shop. Clearly, it is not a "uniform" because as a unique custom-made outfit, it is not uniformly the same as clothing worn by anyone else.

Badges

The shoulder and chest Lion Rampant ("Scottish National Standard") badges were bought off the shelf. The Scotland flag lapel badges were made by a local company and the white border around the traditional St. Andrew's cross ("Saltire") is simply a manufacturing artefact rather than by design. The "DOW" name badge was home-made from items available from a hardware shop.

Republican red arm-band

The red arm band is a traditional method whereby socialists can identify themselves in situations where a threat to order may arise - when stewarding a demonstration or large public meeting or less frequently these days, in street-fighting against fascists.

For example, when a member of the Labour Party in Glasgow in the late 1980s, I wore a red arm-band while serving as a steward at a big public meeting addressed by Tony Benn.

Often the arm-band is simply a strip of red cloth tied around normal clothing. This is the inspiration for the slightly neater tailored version on my jacket.

In passing, I would of course reject any comparison with the use by Nazis of a red-arm-band-with-Nazi-swastika worn as part of some Nazi uniforms.

Real socialists had copyright on red arm bands long before the Nazis were thought of. The Nazis abused words as well as people, and they had no legitimate claim to the words "socialist", "nationalist" or the colour red.

I have thoughtfully written the word "REPUBLICAN" on the arm band, so that I could not be mistaken for one of the Queen's officers, and even if Labour MPs and MSPs swear allegiance to the UK monarch, I certainly do not, and so that I should not be mistaken for maybe a Salvation Army variation or para-medic or something.

Co-incidentally or not, the American republican party's colour is red and I would say I tend to be a more enthusiastic supporter of American republicans like Condoleezza Rice than do other Scottish, British and European socialists, so once again the word "REPUBLICAN" serves me well.

My outfit represents I believe my political roots in socialism and republicanism from where I began my journey to Scottish nationalism - and therefore it is not splendidly, overtly Scottish, with a kilt and so on, as you might see worn by the Scottish military.

I am not saying there is anything wrong with current Scottish military uniforms or anything, it is simply that I wish to be seen to reject the whole notion that if Prince Charles is in a kilt or some other royal dresses the same as a traditional Scottish soldier, that somehow makes that royal "one of us Scots" or loyal to Scotland when in fact he and his family are the true enemies of the Scots, however they dress.

Red trousers

Republican socialist red trousers - wearing this colour of trousers saves me from having to carry the people's Red Flag, first dyed red by the blood of socialist martyrs, as well as the Lion Rampant, Scottish National Standard. After all, I only have one pair of hands.


So I trust that enlightens readers. No military (or organisation) wears it. I wear it and like I say in my signature, I'm a writer and campaigner.




Also, it makes no sense as you seem to imagine that there could possibly be a military organisation I was already a member of and the war on terror had not been won long ago. I'm a winner of wars and the only way we as NATO and the West are taking so long to win this war is because I'm advising from the outside of the military (and being ignored), not leading from the inside of the military (and being taken seriously).

Ok I see. So it's a made up uniform with no official standing. I was curious. An image seen earlier around the MTF flashed in my mind when I saw it.

3656

Peter Dow
12-12-2013, 11:53 PM
Guys, I'm a little puzzled why when there's a war to be won in Afghanistan and in the war on terror, that sartorial discussions are of more interest than military strategy? Me thinks it means that those who are engaging in this line of "questioning" have nothing to say on strategy and simply want a peace with dishonour with the Taliban and go home and find my whole questioning of the drawdown-with-butts-kicked retreat somewhat embarrassing, so will do anything to change the subject?

imnohero
12-13-2013, 12:10 AM
are you referring to this board or something else re: sartorial discussions?

Peter Dow
12-13-2013, 12:32 AM
are you referring to this board or something else re: sartorial discussions?
"Sartorial" means regarding tailoring, clothing, outfits, uniforms and the rest. So those in this thread who were asking questions about my outfit in posts #26, #28, #29 were starting up sartorial discussions. Now, I replied in terms the once but frankly I've had enough and think it's going off topic because the topic of this thread is

"Taliban's terms for peace talks outlined @ "University of Jihad", Pakistan" (that's the thread title) &
How to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan / Pakistan (and win the war on terror) (that's the headline in my OP)

which is all about military strategy, how to defeat the Taliban so talking about clothing too much instead, is derailing the thread, we're being trolled, and I think it best if the whole sartorial discussion is brought to a swift end.

imnohero
12-13-2013, 12:40 AM
Well, setting aside the continuance of the clothing discussion, the answer to your question is:
a) the people here have absolutely no control over military strategy
b) the people that have control wouldn't listen to us, even if we had a genius master plan
c) we've been over this any number of times in the last 12 years and because of a) and b) we're kinda tired of the subject
d) there is no definition of "winning" politically
e) military victory means little when there is no political or strategic follow thru
f) all of the above.

What would you like to talk about that is different than anything that has been hashed over already?

Peter Dow
12-13-2013, 01:49 AM
Well, setting aside the continuance of the clothing discussion, the answer to your question is:
a) the people here have absolutely no control over military strategy
Internet discussions can inform those who have control either now or in the future.


b) the people that have control wouldn't listen to us, even if we had a genius master plan
The politicians are sensitive to internet debate these days. They like to look good on the internet.

Now, do you know the story of the king with no clothes? Maybe you'd expect that a king would never listen to the people. No reason for him to do so, after all, he was king. But when all the people started pointing and laughing at the king with no clothes on he had to listen, he had to act, because standing there stark naked with people pointing at his majesty, is not a tenable position for a king to be in.

Therefore when the internet starts pointing and laughing at peace deals with the Taliban then our presidents and governments will have to listen. Even if presidents and heads of government want to stick to plan A, if they look too foolish, if everyone is mocking them, then that's bad for the political party who chose that leader, so the political party puts big pressure on the leader to listen.


c) we've been over this any number of times in the last 12 years and because of a) and b) we're kinda tired of the subject
Understandable. I've had to take time out from discussing this as well. It's been a very long war. It wears us down.


d) there is no definition of "winning" politically
Oh but at election time, the politicians want to make out, "we are winning" or "we have won" and when they got Bin Laden they defined his death as a political victory.

Now, I'm pointing out that peace deals with the Taliban, paying Pakistan billions as the generals and former generals who dictate Pakistani military policy behind the scenes continue to sponsor the Taliban and other jihadi terrorism is heading down a road to a political defeat, despite the very welcome progress of getting Al Qaeda's number one guy.

In politics, there are always definitions of "winning" but there isn't always agreement about those definitions.


e) military victory means little when there is no political or strategic follow thru
Well political and strategic follow through is a piece of cake, a no-brainer once you have a total military victory.

My point would be that we don't have a total victory over the state sponsors of terrorism. It wasn't just the Taliban state of Afghanistan which was sponsoring Al Qaeda and Bin Laden because that Taliban state of Afghanistan was a vassal state of the imperial Saudi - Pakistani - Jihadi axis and we've never had a military victory over the Taliban's masters. We've never followed through with the Bush doctrine to hold state sponsors of terrorism accountable. Instead, Bush, Obama and UK governments bow, hold hands etc with the Saudi King and give Pakistan billions of dollars.

When we've defeated all the state sponsors of terrorism militarily, the political and strategic follow through will fall into place, very naturally. What's not so easy is getting the military strategy correct to defeat all the enemy state sponsors of terrorism.



f) all of the above.
Comprehensively answered.



What would you like to talk about that is different than anything that has been hashed over already?
I don't think the ideas I've presented in multiple posts all the way through this thread have been hashed over already. Most of those ideas have not been considered seriously or have been dismissed without proper consideration.

For example, the single easiest thing we could do to change the dynamics of the war on terror is to get back control over satellite broadcasting away from state sponsors of terrorism.

I've mentioned this already


Point 3

* We ought to seize control of Pakistani, Egyptian, Saudi and Iranian TV satellites and use them to broadcast propaganda calling for the arrest of all involved in waging terrorist war against the West. Often, these satellites are made, launched and maintained by Western companies and should be easy to take over. Other satellites provided to the enemy by non-Western countries could be jammed or destroyed. Air strikes against the enemy's main terrestrial TV transmitter aerials is another option to silence enemy propaganda.


but I'd like to add this image now which features Egypt mostly but a similar story applies to other state sponsors of terrorism and their satellite broadcasting.

http://imageshack.us/a/img829/9420/mapofusavsegypt860.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img824/7196/mapofusavsegypt1222.jpg - sorry I forgot about the link rule. I hope that's better.

Now, instead of that, we, NATO, the West seize control over satellite broadcasting over the middle east, Iran and Pakistan, leaving trusted allies such as India and bring in Russia as a partner here as well if at all possible, and name the traitors in their own countries, kings, supreme leaders, presidents, generals and former generals who've been sponsoring terrorism and bringing the wrath of the world down upon the countries of the middle east and calling for their arrest etc.

Now this is a different kind of broadcasting from adverts telling the population how nice the West is while allowing the lies about us also to be broadcast from the same satellites. This is propaganda so that the population will be calling on patriots in the military to arrest our enemies.


Now, that's an easy thing to do that simply is not considered or gets dismissed. And neither can we blame field generals in NATO-ISAF for that because they aren't in charge of forces which could seize those satellites which are controlled from Europe, though jamming them can be done from elsewhere its not usually an army job to do. Usually you have a space command or something for satellite warfare if it comes to that.

So the failures are in strategic vision by our highest commanders - Defence Secretaries, ministers and presidents and heads of government in the US, UK, Germany, France etc. and the alliance NATO secretary general and the supreme allied commander europe.

This has not been hashed out. This is being blocked by daft ideas of allowing your enemy the freedom to wage war against you. That's not freedom that's suicide, that's letting our troops down, causing them to have to fight harder, take more casualties because the strategy is wrong.

imnohero
12-13-2013, 02:04 AM
Essentially what your arguing is military domination followed by Imperial Occupation. OK, I agree that would end state sponsored terror...there would be no "state" left to sponsor it. Hardly the end of terror, though. Of course, it's not like the rest of the world would just go along with us bombing most of africa and asia into submission and overthrowing the governments ... so there might be a couple small flaws in your plan.

Peter Dow
12-13-2013, 02:40 AM
Essentially what your arguing is military domination
In war you dominate your enemies. You don't dominate your friends. We have friends in all of those countries who share our values of freedom and democracy which means we help our friends defeat our enemies.

The Saudi king and other Arab and gulf monarchies are sponsoring terrorism against our Arab friends, who believe in government by the people, not by the monarch, because he is very much opposed to our ideas of freedom and democracy taking hold in Arabia and the Saudi family being kicked out.

If we dominate the Kings, stop them dominating their kingdoms, help the people free themselves from domination, then we leave those lands as free as our own lands are - self-governing democratic nations. Then there's little or no domination by any one - just us, with an eye in the sky watching over the free peoples of the region.


followed by Imperial Occupation.
No, as I've explained the empire which ruled Afghanistan was the Saudi - Pakistani - jihadi empire, for which Bin Laden fought. We are the anti-imperialists in this war on terror, this war on imperialism.

Also, we should be very choosy about which bits of land we need to occupy. Afghanistan would not have been my first choice - that would have been the Saudi oil fields. What we are about is defeating our enemy, and that's doesn't require us to occupy much land.


OK, I agree that would end state sponsored terror...there would be no "state" left to sponsor it.
We would leave multiple independent nation states, as many if not more than there are states just now. For example, the Saudi kingdom could be replaced by a number of republican nation states. Maybe it might go another way - larger demoninational states, a Sunni republic, a Shia republic, a civil, non-religious state, etc. which had ways of implementing a two or three state solution over Arabia? We can't say for sure how it will turn out but there would certainly be multiple independent nation states, just no more kings and military dictators sponsoring terrorism against us.


Hardly the end of terror, though.
No, that's the one thing which would go, certainly on an international basis. Some local incidents of terror cannot be ruled out. There will always be a risk of incidents of police brutality for example. But you allow people the freedom to establish states which will defend their rights as best they can.


Of course, it's not like the rest of the world would just go along with us bombing most of africa and asia
into submission and overthrowing the governments ...
It's not bombing most of Africa and Asia. I've never suggested that. It's tackling those problem states, with no need to tackle states which are no problem and would be delighted to support our efforts. The world will go along if this is explained properly - much easier to do, if we get control over satellite broadcasting.


so there might be a couple small flaws in your plan.
There's a lot to my plan. We've only touched upon some elements of my strategy. There may well be a few smallish flaws that need working on but you haven't identified any of them as yet. But you are welcome to keep looking.

imnohero
12-13-2013, 02:54 AM
There's a lot to my plan. We've only touched upon some elements of my strategy. There may well be a few smallish flaws that need working on but you haven't identified any of them as yet. But you are welcome to keep looking.

All of this is the same "spread democracy and freedom" talk that we've heard and read from Jefferson to Bush. It's imperialism in sheeps clothing. We tried in the 20th century and failed miserably every time. The logical extension of your positions and arguments is brutal dictatorial occupation, nothing else will stop "state sponsored terror." Although, you might want to check with the Belgians about how that worked out for them in Congo.

And while you're reading some history, check into why the Silk Roads went AROUND what is now Afghansitan and Pakistan, that might answer your question about finding flaws in your plan.

TJMAC77SP
12-13-2013, 03:06 AM
Guys, I'm a little puzzled why when there's a war to be won in Afghanistan and in the war on terror, that sartorial discussions are of more interest than military strategy? Me thinks it means that those who are engaging in this line of "questioning" have nothing to say on strategy and simply want a peace with dishonour with the Taliban and go home and find my whole questioning of the drawdown-with-butts-kicked retreat somewhat embarrassing, so will do anything to change the subject?

Yeah, that's it. That's why I asked about the 'uniform'. I would be happy with a 'peace with dishonor' end-game. It has nothing to do with monumental silliness

TJMAC77SP
12-13-2013, 03:07 AM
Is it just me or does it seem Zach is back ?

imnohero
12-13-2013, 03:19 AM
More like RFD if you ask me.

AJBIGJ
12-13-2013, 11:50 AM
We could even go into how we've arbitrarily defined "enemies" when going into who gets "dominated" when looking at all of this silliness. The guys who strap bombs to their chests bear a strikingly similar resemblance to the guys defending our backs, occasionally they even happen to be the very same person. All of this talk of leaving an "honorable" outcome or what not sounds good on paper, but is usually found lacking in practice. Part of this stems from the fact that it is difficult for a common citizen of any country anywhere to appreciate their newfound "freedom" while staring down the barrel of your rifle. If we want them to fully appreciate what freedom is like, we first need to cut the marionette strings and allow social change to happen unmanipulated. If the eventual direction happens to become a society that will welcome "McDonald's Diplomacy" then they really will get a chance to taste freedom (grease and all). If they become yet another society that continues to feud with itself, the only thing we bring to the table is a common enemy and scapegoat they can temporarily unite against.

AJBIGJ
12-13-2013, 12:25 PM
More like RFD if you ask me.

By length maybe, I can never imagine hearing RFD make the argument that we need to invest more military interventionism in Afghanistan than what we're doing already. I could see him making the argument that airpower not groundpower is the appropriate force to get the job done however.

TJMAC77SP
12-13-2013, 12:48 PM
By length maybe, I can never imagine hearing RFD make the argument that we need to invest more military interventionism in Afghanistan than what we're doing already. I could see him making the argument that airpower not groundpower is the appropriate force to get the job done however.

Yeah, that I could see. And I DEFINITELY agree with your first statement.

AFcynic
12-13-2013, 12:51 PM
You know who else wears red pants? Clowns.

AJBIGJ
12-13-2013, 01:13 PM
I take back everything I said before, we can totally win this thing!

Simple Questions:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/12/11/simple-question-on-afghanistan-leaves-officials-stumped/

efmbman
12-13-2013, 03:54 PM
I take back everything I said before, we can totally win this thing!

Simple Questions:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/12/11/simple-question-on-afghanistan-leaves-officials-stumped/

Well done!

/THREAD

Peter Dow
12-14-2013, 09:08 PM
All of this is the same "spread democracy and freedom" talk that we've heard and read from Jefferson to Bush.
I don't believe Jefferson was at war with the terrorists hosted by the Taliban and their masters.

"Bush", certainly because if you've heard and read of the LINK REMOVED then you'll recognise my war aims.

Oops. Sorry again. I should have written. Thanks for the infraction mods, that'll teach me not to forget, maybe.

"Bush", certainly because if you've heard and read of the Bush Doctrine - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine then you'll recognise my war aims.


It's imperialism in sheeps clothing.
No, it's the Bush doctrine in wolves' clothing which differs significantly from what President Bush actually pursued in office which was the Bush doctrine in sheep's clothing, taking our forces like lambs to the slaughter in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The difference between this wolf and Bush & Obama sheep is that my wolves' strategy wages war on all the state sponsors of terrorism, not just Saddam's Iraq and the Taliban's Afghanistan.

But wolves or sheep it's not imperialism of any kind. There's no empire in my plan but there's real freedom and democracy.


We tried in the 20th century and failed miserably every time. The logical extension of your positions and arguments is brutal dictatorial occupation, nothing else will stop "state sponsored terror." Although, you might want to check with the Belgians about how that worked out for them in Congo.
Well I seem to remember the rivals to freedom and democracy coming off worst in the major wars of the 20th century which didn't lead to brutal dictatorial occupation but a free Germany, Japan and Italy after WW2 and a free Eastern Europe after we won the cold war.

We don't really have time to debate all of 20th century history but I am no more a supporter of the Belgian King and his empire than I am of the Saudi King and his empire.



And while you're reading some history, check into why the Silk Roads went AROUND what is now Afghansitan and Pakistan, that might answer your question about finding flaws in your plan.
We're not in Afghanistan for the purpose of transporting goods from East to West, as per the silk roads.

However, if and while we have our army in Afghanistan or indeed anywhere, it needs to be supplied more securely than now because insecure supply routes simply supply the enemy as much as they supply our own forces. Additionally our forces and civilians suffer from road side bombs and ambushes along insecure main supply routes.

Peter Dow
12-14-2013, 09:49 PM
Yeah, that's it. That's why I asked about the 'uniform'. I would be happy with a 'peace with dishonor' end-game. It has nothing to do with monumental silliness
We have to win this war on terror first before taking the time to build monuments to its greatest heroes and leaders but when doing so, those monuments should be built in proportion to the scale of achievement and importance to the progress for mankind achieved by the accomplishments of the person or persons remembered in the monument.

So for example, if honouring Martin Luther King's leadership in the black civil rights struggle with a 30 feet (or 9 metres) high monument then the appropriate scale of monument for Condoleezza Rice's leadership in the cold war and the global war on terror would be, I'd estimate, somewhere around the 1000 feet (or 300 metres) high monument.

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/1795/condiwashingtonmonument.jpg

MLK was a great man indeed but in my opinion Condoleezza Rice is a far greater freedom and democracy colossus who dwarfs the accomplishments of all other great leaders of this age and I suspect of many earlier ages too.

So when building a Condi monument, build big. It would be silly not to.

TJMAC77SP
12-14-2013, 10:13 PM
We have to win this war on terror first before taking the time to build monuments to its greatest heroes and leaders but when doing so, those monuments should be built in proportion to the scale of achievement and importance to the progress for mankind achieved by the accomplishments of the person or persons remembered in the monument.

So for example, if honouring Martin Luther King's leadership in the black civil rights struggle with a 30 feet (or 9 metres) high monument then the appropriate scale of monument for Condoleezza Rice's leadership in the cold war and the global war on terror would be, I'd estimate, somewhere around the 1000 feet (or 300 metres) high monument.

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/1795/condiwashingtonmonument.jpg

MLK was a great man indeed but in my opinion Condoleezza Rice is a far greater freedom and democracy colossus who dwarfs the accomplishments of all other great leaders of this age and I suspect of many earlier ages too.

So when building a Condi monument, build big. It would be silly not to.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh......................OK.

imnohero
12-14-2013, 10:33 PM
King, you have no clothes.

Peter Dow
12-15-2013, 02:02 AM
We could even go into how we've arbitrarily defined "enemies" when going into who gets "dominated" when looking at all of this silliness. The guys who strap bombs to their chests bear a strikingly similar resemblance to the guys defending our backs, occasionally they even happen to be the very same person.
Backstabbing, and its modern equivalents, is something the military should expect. The days of chivalry in warfare are long gone. But it is not only enemy foot-soldiers on the battlefield who come in disguise pretending to be friends, awaiting their opportunity to kill us.

The state sponsors of terrorism are precisely pretending to our faces to be friends - the Saudi kingdom, the Pakistani generals - while backstabbing us by sponsoring terrorism. Our strategy needs to take account of this by pursuing all state sponsors of terrorism however much they claim to be allies and friends.

As for green on blue attacks from the Afghan army, I've already suggested that the solution to that is that we should no longer fund the Afghan national army and instead fund our own auxiliary army of Afghans and others from the region (most likely under NATO) and keep our distance from the tiny Afghan national army which Afghans could afford to pay for out of their own funds. That way we could vet recruits into our auxiliary army more rigorously and not have to rely on the Afghan government to do it while the corrupt incentive we've been offering to them is to recruit just anyone they can, loyal or disloyal, because the more they can recruit the more funds they get from us.



All of this talk of leaving an "honorable" outcome or what not sounds good on paper, but is usually found lacking in practice. Part of this stems from the fact that it is difficult for a common citizen of any country anywhere to appreciate their newfound "freedom" while staring down the barrel of your rifle.
OK well give Afghan citizens a choice -


live under the protection of their own national government in most areas of Afghanistan controlled exclusively by Afghans with us only turning up when invited or
choose to live under our protection in fewer areas controlled by us, mostly in our bases, along our supply lines or in our custom refugee camps, with our rigorous security measures.

Then we'll see what kind of freedom they prefer - a safer freedom with our rifles or a less safe freedom with Afghan national rifles.

I've always suggested leaving the on-the-ground policing of urban areas of occupied countries to the locals. We are not cut out to police other nations. They can do that for themselves well enough if there's no state sponsored terrorism. We help best by picking on someone our own size - a state sponsor of terrorism and we do that by such means as seizing control over satellite TV broadcasting, strategic bombing and so on.


If we want them to fully appreciate what freedom is like, we first need to cut the marionette strings and allow social change to happen unmanipulated.
The Taliban are dangling from the marionette strings of the Pakistani military intelligence agency, the ISI and that's the manipulation of people we need to stop, by waging war against the Pakistani generals and former generals who dictate military policy in Pakistan and against the Saudis who fund it all.


If the eventual direction happens to become a society that will welcome "McDonald's Diplomacy" then they really will get a chance to taste freedom (grease and all). If they become yet another society that continues to feud with itself, the only thing we bring to the table is a common enemy and scapegoat they can temporarily unite against.

It's always been the case, in Iraq and Afghanistan, that neighbouring countries have sponsored terror groups to try to wreck the society we are trying to build and to wrestle rival neighbours for imperial power to the winning state sponsor of terrorism when we're finally forced to leave, as we have in Iraq. If we simply cease our intervention then Afghanistan is entirely open to the malign neighbouring states to resume their manipulation unchecked by anyone with the power to resist them.

imnohero
12-15-2013, 02:14 AM
OK well give Afghan citizens a choice -


live under the protection of their own national government in most areas of Afghanistan controlled exclusively by Afghans with us only turning up when invited or
choose to live under our protection in fewer areas controlled by us, mostly in our bases, along our supply lines or in our custom refugee camps, with our rigorous security measures.

Then we'll see what kind of freedom they prefer - a safer freedom with our rifles or a less safe freedom with Afghan national rifles.



You do understand that the "freedom" you are talking about is not freedom at all, right? It denies the most essential part of real freedom, autonomy. To the Aghanis and Pashtuns, it doesn't matter who is holding the rifle. That you don't realize this even as you protest England's "protection" of Scottland, is ironic.

AJBIGJ
12-15-2013, 04:21 AM
I don't want to occupy an entire page with a "reply with quote" here.

Let me get this straight, you seek an "honorable" solution, but propose in doing so we set them up under a system of martial law, whether it be under ourselves, or some trusted entity. This of course was after overthrowing every one of these governments (because you can link just about any one of these states to some form of militancy and terrorism, and if we're going in with such a mindset, we might as well "overthrow ourselves" while we're at it, we're quite culpable in it.)

Next, we take military control over their propaganda machines, threaten the citizens to turn in all of their militants, or else...

Of course they'll comply with our demands, quite peacefully I'm certain...

Like yourself, I too have ideas I imagine that work absolutely perfectly every time I play them out in my head!

Reality just has to learn how to be more cooperative!

Edit: Forgive me, I missed an important step in the process, we will also force them into refugee status to move into religious sect concentration camps and quarantine them from one another so they don't get into internal squabbles, anyone who has studied "Manifest Destiny" knows that usually plays out quite well also.

Peter Dow
12-15-2013, 05:26 PM
You do understand that the "freedom" you are talking about is not freedom at all, right?
I'm saying that Aghans can enjoy a large measure of freedom independent of us by remaining in parts of Afghanistan which they exclusively control and where we have no say, because we respect their freedom and independence and are partly occupying Afghanistan in some other parts of the country to ensure they, the Afghans, don't get taken over by a resurgent Taliban.

But "no", you say, that's not any kind of freedom?

So then according to your logic, Cuba is "not free" not because the Castro-ists lock up anyone who disagrees with them but because the US occupies a Naval base at Guantanomo Bay, is that your logic? That unless every square inch of a country's former territory is "liberated" from the occupier that all citizens are enslaved by the occupying power somewhere over the horizon, not by the actual Cuban or Afghan state goons who lock the dissenters up?

According to that logic, the North Koreans are oppressed by the US bases in South Korea, not by the North Korean dictator and his police state! Is that your position?


It denies the most essential part of real freedom, autonomy.
No it doesn't because if we hadn't have invaded Afghanistan how much "autonomy" would they have had under Taliban rule? None. Our way, they can have quite a bit of autonomy actually.



To the Aghanis and Pashtuns, it doesn't matter who is holding the rifle.
That you don't realize this even as you protest England's "protection" of Scottland, is ironic.

To Afghans it matters if Afghans are holding the rifles and those rifles are pointed and used according to their national policies, as determined by their elected representatives. It matters a lot to Afghans.

I imagine that Pashtuns like Scots would like the same kind of national autonomy as we currently offer to Afghans, Pakistanis and Britons and our principles of freedom and democracy support national autonomy and the creation of new nation states to deliver that.

The issue is that where we must have bases for security purposes then we must act with military superiority when necessary to secure those troops and their supplies where there's a threat and there certainly is in Afghanistan with thousands of our troops killed. We can't have our troops held hostage by having critical security denied by a sovereign Aghan government. Same as the US doesn't abandon Guantanomo because Castro says "GET OUT!".

imnohero
12-15-2013, 07:08 PM
Now you are contradicting yourself.

Peter Dow
12-15-2013, 08:01 PM
I don't want to occupy an entire page with a "reply with quote" here.

Let me get this straight, you seek an "honorable" solution,
In Afghanistan, sure. No reason not to expect that. It's not as if we are beaten by the Taliban and are forced to pull out because of a military necessity.

NATO is the strongest military alliance in history and we're up against a gang of medieval murderers who are no match for us, even on our worst day, so why would we put up with a negotiated peace deal with the Taliban and let the Taliban snatch what amounts to a victory-for-them peace deal from the jaws of victory-for-us crushing of the Taliban which is within reach?

All the casualties we've taken in this long war should be for something worthwhile, a victory, not for nothing. We owe that to honour our own dead in this war. They died so that others could be free. They didn't die so that others should feel obliged to have to deal with the Taliban oppressor because we are leaving them on their own.

That's the way I see the honour question as regards Afghanistan.



but propose in doing so we set them up under a system of martial law, whether it be under ourselves, or some trusted entity.
Now what are you talking about here - Afghanistan or the war on all state sponsors of terrorism? Either way, any laws we lay down and which are imposed by our military are under our civilian democratically elected political leadership. So if it is "martial law", it's an accountable martial law. It's not military dictatorship. The people remain in power. Just that it is a lot more people from all the countries engaged who would be calling the shots.


This of course was after overthrowing every one of these governments (because you can link just about any one of these states to some form of militancy and terrorism, and if we're going in with such a mindset, we might as well "overthrow ourselves" while we're at it, we're quite culpable in it.)
You mean state sponsor of terrorism governments? Well where there is already an elected government it's more a question of overthrowing the disloyal military state, the Pakistani or Egyptian generals and former generals who dictate military policy behind the scenes irrespective of what the elected governments want.

In the case of non-elected governments, the Saudi King, sure overthrow his ass.


and if we're going in with such a mindset, we might as well "overthrow ourselves" while we're at it, we're quite culpable in it.)
Well we could get to overthrowing the monarchy part of the UK, kick out the Queen, in favour of nation state republics in due course, if there's time. I think the UK has a lot to answer for in starting all this with MI6 suggesting imposing the Shah of Iran in, when was it, 1953? Operation Ajax halted the natural progression to democracy in the Middle East and led to a lot of blowback that we've got to put right the hard way now.


Next, we take military control over their propaganda machines, threaten the citizens to turn in all of their militants, or else...
It's a question of telling the truth about how their own generals and former generals have been trying to assassinate the people's favourites like Malala and Benazir Bhutto. They'll want to get those generals once they learn what they've been doing behind their backs.


Of course they'll comply with our demands, quite peacefully I'm certain...

Like yourself, I too have ideas I imagine that work absolutely perfectly every time I play them out in my head!
Well I've also played a computer game of revolution simulation, Republic the Revolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic:_The_Revolution (Hooray I remembered not to embed the link - see mods, I am learning!)


Reality just has to learn how to be more cooperative!
Everything we know is that people do what they are told if the message is one-sided. We just need to give ourselves exclusive access to satellite TV in the region to win the propaganda war.


Edit: Forgive me, I missed an important step in the process, we will also force them into refugee status to move into religious sect concentration camps and quarantine them from one another so they don't get into internal squabbles, anyone who has studied "Manifest Destiny" knows that usually plays out quite well also.
I've no idea where you think I'm suggesting forcing people to move into "religious sect concentration camps". Bizarre. I've suggested no such thing.

Manifest Destiny - I've not studied that. Is it anything to do with this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny

I've only skim read that but what came to mind was this


O beautiful for pilgrim feet
Whose stern impassioned stress
A thoroughfare of freedom beat
Across the wilderness!
America! America!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rzs52OzgWOs

Awesome. That song could win a war. :usaflag:

Peter Dow
12-16-2013, 02:05 AM
Now you are contradicting yourself.
Now you are not quoting two (according to you) "contradictory" statements of mine.

What's the contradictory points I've made? Have I said black is white? Then what?

:playball

AJBIGJ
12-16-2013, 03:14 AM
Jeez, never before have I met someone with so little of value to add with quite this many words...

Obviously actual military service is not your forte, no worries, I don't expect it to be, but let's try simple ROI (that's return on investment, if you have a similar acumen to business as you do military strategy).

What is the expected ROI for overthrowing not just one, but several nation states under the suspicion that they are in fact state sponsors of terrorism? Do they capitulate, see the error of their ways as it were, and suddenly embrace democracy and diplomacy as we introduce them to a newfound freedom under a bloody nose?

A question for others, why does this feel similar to clubbing a baby seal?

TJMAC77SP
12-16-2013, 03:49 AM
Jeez, never before have I met someone with so little of value to add with quite this many words...

Obviously actual military service is not your forte, no worries, I don't expect it to be, but let's try simple ROI (that's return on investment, if you have a similar acumen to business as you do military strategy).

What is the expected ROI for overthrowing not just one, but several nation states under the suspicion that they are in fact state sponsors of terrorism? Do they capitulate, see the error of their ways as it were, and suddenly embrace democracy and diplomacy as we introduce them to a newfound freedom under a bloody nose?

A question for others, why does this feel similar to clubbing a baby seal?

I have.......................Zach.

AJBIGJ
12-16-2013, 11:11 AM
I have.......................Zach.

My dealings with that individual were fairly limited, I'll take your word at it.

TJMAC77SP
12-16-2013, 01:51 PM
My dealings with that individual were fairly limited, I'll take your word at it.

Long winded diatribes often seeming to be in answer to an unasked question. Rambling but generally articulate. Claiming to have THE answer to a very complex problem which no one else, particularly those who could actually do something about the problem, seem to possess.

AJBIGJ
12-16-2013, 02:04 PM
Long winded diatribes often seeming to be in answer to an unasked question. Rambling but generally articulate. Claiming to have THE answer to a very complex problem which no one else, particularly those who could actually do something about the problem, seem to possess.

That sums it up.

Peter Dow
12-24-2013, 12:14 PM
Return of the Taliban - gunmen take part in joint patrols with Afghanistan forces ahead of 2015 withdrawal
Daily Mirror, Dec 21, 2013. By Chris Hughes
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/return-taliban---gunmen-take-2948018

The revelations from Sangin make a mockery of David Cameron’s overblown claim this week that it is “mission accomplished” in Afghanistan

http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article2946896.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/I131220_143926_326842oTextCS_53483230-2946896.jpg
Not over yet: Afghan National Army (ANA) soldiers and Taliban jointly patrol areas in the Sangin district of southern Helmand province

Swaggering Taliban gunmen have been taking part in joint patrols with Afghan government forces in Helmand’s deadliest town.

The revelations from Sangin make a mockery of David Cameron’s overblown claim this week that it is “mission accomplished” in Afghanistan.

And it raised fears the Taliban will take over the country again as international troops prepare to withdraw by 2015.

Last night an Afghan Taliban source in Pakistan confirmed to the Daily Mirror: “Already it is true that our mujahideen have retaken some security posts in Afghanistan and this will continue to happen.”

Agreements between the Afghan National Army and the Taliban are a huge betrayal of brave British soldiers who trained local security forces to secure Afghanistan by themselves.

With our enemy the Taliban now patrolling with the Afghan National Army which the NATO countries have funded with billions of pounds (mostly US dollars actually), anyone who is not in denial can plainly see the fatal flaw of funding an Afghan army over which we have no political control.

Also, we've been funding the Taliban's masters - Pakistan with more billions in aid and Saudi Arabia with even more billions in oil purchases. So the Taliban have been well funded, if indirectly, by us too.

So the Taliban have not been short of money to spend on training up new recruits to replace their fighters we've killed on the battlefields of Afghanistan.

It is a military fundamental that you don't win a war by funding your enemy but rather you win a war by bankrupting your enemy, cutting off the resources the enemy needs to sustain its army.

So we've made the war in Afghanistan much more difficult to win because of the incompetent management of the war by our governments which we've seen over the years. The mission can now be seen to be failing and it will take thorough remedial measures to bring the mission back on course.

Part of the solution would to be re-organise the Afghan forces as I have already described to counter green-on-blue attacks by Afghans on our own soldiers.

We should establish a new auxiliary NATO force of Afghans recruited from the Afghan National Army but which would be commanded by our NATO generals and be under our political control.

We should stop funding the ANA.

TJMAC77SP
12-24-2013, 06:11 PM
That sums it up.

Also, continuing to post in exactly the same way after being continually ridiculed for doing so.

waveshaper2
12-26-2013, 12:10 AM
The future of Afghanistan is what comes down from the mountains when the foreigners leave, its been that way for millennia. Lets not waste one more American life or dollar, its well past time to shut this OP down.

Max Power
12-26-2013, 07:59 PM
http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/061/690/wgoitt2.jpg

Juggs
12-26-2013, 10:03 PM
That shit hole will never be a peaceful tolerant nation. It will be full of and ran by fanatical Muslims that will behead nonbelievers in the literal sense.

Peter Dow
01-11-2014, 11:41 AM
Jeez, never before have I met someone with so little of value to add with quite this many words...

Obviously actual military service is not your forte, no worries, I don't expect it to be, but let's try simple ROI (that's return on investment, if you have a similar acumen to business as you do military strategy).

What is the expected ROI for overthrowing not just one, but several nation states under the suspicion that they are in fact state sponsors of terrorism? Do they capitulate, see the error of their ways as it were, and suddenly embrace democracy and diplomacy as we introduce them to a newfound freedom under a bloody nose?

The return on investment

The return on investment appears when we wage war on those oil rich states which have been sponsoring terrorism - most obviously the Saudis, who sponsor the most terrorism, so pick them first.


Wikipedia: Saudi Arabia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism#Saudi_Arabia
Saudi Arabia is said to be the world's largest source of funds for Salafi jihadist terrorist militant groups, such as al-Qaeda, the Afghan Taliban, and Lashkar-e-Taiba in South Asia, and donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide, according to Hillary Clinton. According to a secret December 2009 paper signed by the US secretary of state, "Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups."


http://world-economic-outlook.findthedata.org/l/7886/Saudi-Arabia - The dollar value of Saudi oil exports varies according to the oil price and how much is produced in any year.

For example, in 2009 it was only $163 billion but in 2013 it was estimated to be $334 billion.

So the plan is to take a share of that.

What we can do very effectively and humanely is prevent, limit or tax Saudi Arabia's oil exports. All Saudi Arabia's oil exports leave in oil tankers.

Now, we've seen how easy it was for Somali pirates to take unescorted ships. We had to deploy NATO naval power to protect shipping from those Somali pirates.

Now, imagine how very easy it would be for NATO to pirate or blockade oil tankers exporting oil from Saudi Arabia or indeed from any of the Middle East ports.

It would be like taking candy from a baby.

So we could confiscate a proportion of oil tankers, impose a tax, make them pay, compel them enough to mend their ways, explain on seized Arab satellite TV what the Arabs need to do by way of stopping terrorism and regime change to get their oil flowing in full again.

As a military strategy, it's a no-brainer. An easy win. A home run. A slam dunk.

Fighting the war on terror like that, makes the Afghan war look retarded, a famous military disaster in comparison.

Once we have control of Saudi oil we won't need them to buy much off us.

Also if we regime change the Saudis to another Arab regime they'd be more happy to do business with us than if we left the Saudis in power.

Ideally, the flow of oil would be where we want it to go. So we wouldn't be trying to cut off ALL oil flow. We'd be directing the oil tankers to go where we wanted them to go, not to where the Saudi's paying customers wanted them to go.

If customers wanted the oil, they'd have to pay us and the Arabs would get paid only what we wanted them to get paid and the money wouldn't go into Saudi royal bank accounts but into the hands of the needy Arab people, including paying the wages and costs of extracting the oil itself of course. No doubt Big Oil can help us with that side of things.

Our own countries could get some oil virtually for free or take a tax on the sales of Arabian oil to help pay down the war debts.

Now, it's never as simple as that because the Saudis could try to cut off the oil production themselves, but we could argue against that on seized Arab satellite TV and use that as another reason to call for a revolution to overthrow the Saudis.

Of course, there will be panic on the oil market as the new system of control is announced and our naval blockades go into place. Sure, the oil price will sky rocket for a time. However in due course it should settle down and we may well end up with lower oil prices when the fuss has died down.

AJBIGJ
01-13-2014, 01:04 PM
Boy, so not only do we militarily occupy essentially the entire Middle East, but then we hijack OPEC and all of its profits, yes I'm sure the rest of the world will just play along nicely as we do this...

efmbman
01-13-2014, 01:32 PM
Saudi Arabia is said to be the world's largest source of funds for Salafi jihadist terrorist militant groups, such as al-Qaeda, the Afghan Taliban, and Lashkar-e-Taiba in South Asia, and donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide, according to Hillary Clinton. According to a secret December 2009 paper signed by the US secretary of state, "Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups."

So is it the government of Saudi Arabia? Or "donors in Saudi Arabia"? Two very different scenarios. A nation-state supporting terrorism is one thing and would be very difficult to prove to the international community, especially considering how the last "proving" went.

"Donors in Saudi Arabia" sounds like individuals that send money to terrorist organizations. There were more than a few people in the USA that financially supported the IRA during The Toubles. Would that equate to the USA supporting a terrorist organization (in the eyes of the British government) or "donors in the USA" supporting terrorism?

Peter Dow
01-13-2014, 03:17 PM
Boy, so not only do we militarily occupy essentially the entire Middle East,
No. Not "only". Not even. Not at all really.

We don't occupy "essentially the entire Middle East". Possibly we could consider occupying bits of it such as oil fields if that was really necessary but I am pointing now to what could be done easily without occupying any of the Middle East.

We can control a lot of the oil business because a lot of oil moves around in oil tankers and we can use naval power to control the movement of oil tankers. If oil tankers don't take their shipping destination from the orders of our navies then board the oil tankers with marines - that's what marines were originally for - put a naval team on board and ship the oil tanker to where we want it to unload it. Pay the oil company which filled the oil tanker with oil in the first place a minimal value which covers the costs of doing so, but doesn't pay the full market value including profits. We sell the oil at full market value and use the profits for our good causes, not sponsoring terrorism, paying down our war debts, investing in water and electricity supply for Iraq, all kinds of good things like that.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/World_countries_Standard_%26_Poor%27s_ratings.svg/800px-World_countries_Standard_%26_Poor%27s_ratings.svg. png
World countries by Standard & Poor's Foreign Rating

http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/8217/condiaaa500.jpg
Condoleezza Rice for President - when only AAA will do


but then we hijack OPEC and all of its profits,
Well we'd only be "hijacking" or pirating oil tankers out of the Middle East and not Iraqi oil tankers which would get waved through since they are a country suffering a lot of terrorism themselves they probably are not the ones sponsoring terrorism in other countries.

Out of the OPEC members I'd be thinking about taking control of the oil tankers of Saudi Arabia and Iran, for sure, with consideration given to taking those out of Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Kuwait as well.

So I'm not suggesting interfering with the OPEC African or South American countries' oil tankers, not if they behaved themselves.

Of course the profits of any country whose oil tankers are being taken and sucked dry of their oil are going to be hit.

However, the profits of the other African and South American OPEC countries would be more effected by factors such as the oil price - how our taking of oil from tankers effects the global price of oil and we could do something to effect that price depending on for how much we were prepared to resale the confiscated oil back into the global market.


yes I'm sure the rest of the world will just play along nicely as we do this...
Actually, they would. Once we have got our hands on half the world's oil, we will suddenly become the rest of the world's best friend.
:nod

Apart from the countries whose oil we've taken, who will be angry about it all of course but then they are already angry enough to be sponsoring terrorism so no change there.

AJBIGJ
01-13-2014, 03:20 PM
No. Not "only". Not even. Not at all really.

We don't occupy "essentially the entire Middle East". Possibly we could consider occupying bits of it such as oil fields if that was really necessary but I am pointing now to what could be done easily without occupying any of the Middle East.

We can control a lot of the oil business because a lot of oil moves around in oil tankers and we can use naval power to control the movement of oil tankers. If oil tankers don't take their shipping destination from the orders of our navies then board the oil tankers with marines - that's what marines were originally for - put a naval team on board and ship the oil tanker to where we want it to unload it. Pay the oil company which filled the oil tanker with oil in the first place a minimal value which covers the costs of doing so, but doesn't pay the full market value including profits. We sell the oil at full market value and use the profits for our good causes, not sponsoring terrorism, paying down our war debts, investing in water and electricity supply for Iraq, all kind of good things like that.


Well we'd only be "hijacking" or pirating oil tankers out of the Middle East and not Iraqi oil tankers which would get waved through since they are a country suffering a lot of terrorism themselves they probably are not the ones exporting terrorism to other countries.

Out of the OPEC members I'd be thinking about taking control of the oil tankers of Saudi Arabia and Iran, for sure, with consideration given to taking those out of Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Kuwait as well.

So I'm not suggesting interfering with the OPEC African or South American countries' oil tankers.

Of course the profits of any country whose oil tankers are being taken and sucked dry of their oil are going to be hit. However, the profits of other countries would be more effected by other factors such as the oil price - how the taking of oil from tankers effects the global price of oil and we could do a lot to effect that depending on how much we were prepared to resale the confiscated oil back into the global market.


Actually, they would. Once we have got our hands on half the world's oil, we will suddenly become everybody's best friend.
:lew:

A yes, government inflicted piracy is always well-received, no blowback there whatsoever...

Peter Dow
01-13-2014, 05:41 PM
So is it the government of Saudi Arabia? Or "donors in Saudi Arabia"? Two very different scenarios.
Not so very different because the donors have the full permission of the Saudi kingdom to do so, the individuals or organisations involved are never prosecuted for doing so and the suspicion must be that the donors are fronts for the Saudi royal family who are attempting to hide their hand in this and managing to fool only the naive.


You can read one of the sources for the Wikipedia paragraph I quoted earlier.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cables-saudi-terrorist-funding


WikiLeaks cables portray Saudi Arabia as a cash machine for terrorists

Hillary Clinton memo highlights Gulf states' failure to block funding for groups like al-Qaida, Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba

Saudi Arabia is the world's largest source of funds for Islamist militant groups such as the Afghan Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba – but the Saudi government is reluctant to stem the flow of money, according to Hillary Clinton.

"More needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups," says a secret December 2009 paper signed by the US secretary of state. Her memo urged US diplomats to redouble their efforts to stop Gulf money reaching extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

"Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide," she said.

Three other Arab countries are listed as sources of militant money: Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates.



A nation-state supporting terrorism is one thing and would be very difficult to prove to the international community, especially considering how the last "proving" went.
Well Saudi Arabia is a "state" but it's not a "nation" state it's a kingdom, a state wholly owned and controlled by the Saudi royal family. Unless you describe the Saudi royal family as "a nation" then Saudi Arabia is not a nation state.

That pedantic point made, we don't have to prove it to the international community. We have only to prove it to ourselves in the war on terror to take retaliatory acts of war of our own against the enemy.


This ABC World News from 2007 explains that the Saudis refuse to prosecute known Saudi donors, which have been listed by the United Nations. The world leaders know that the Saudis are sponsoring terrorism already.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1dcwrucnAk



"Donors in Saudi Arabia" sounds like individuals that send money to terrorist organizations.

More from that Guardian newspaper story source -


The cables highlight an often ignored factor in the Pakistani and Afghan conflicts: that the violence is partly bankrolled by rich, conservative donors across the Arabian Sea whose governments do little to stop them.

The problem is particularly acute in Saudi Arabia, where militants soliciting funds slip into the country disguised as holy pilgrims, set up front companies to launder funds and receive money from government-sanctioned charities.
So think of the equivalent of who "rich conservative American donors" might be. People who are rich in a country tend to have excellent relations with the government or the state of that country. If they didn't the state's courts would take their wealth away from them.

Think of who government-sanctioned charities might be. How long do you think the Red Cross would be US-government-sanctioned if it was sponsoring terrorists? Not very long. But Saudi government-sanctioned charities can sponsor Al Qaeda and the Taliban because the Saudi royal family who rule Saudi Arabia approve 100%.



There were more than a few people in the USA that financially supported the IRA during The Toubles. Would that equate to the USA supporting a terrorist organization (in the eyes of the British government) or "donors in the USA" supporting terrorism?
Another pedantic point, in the UK vs Irish republican conflict, troubles, war, whatever, it is not correct to represent the UK government as the "British" government. The UK government is often times behaving in a very anti-British way, cruelly abusing British people, allowing the Queen's forces to torture and kill innocent British people.

Good citizens of high moral conscience, public spirited and social activism are jailed like common criminals, or sectioned as insane, for political activity, for daring to confront abusive authority - we are jailed like animals with common criminals or lunatics and half-starved, denied protein and forced to breathe the smoke from smokers we are forced to share jail cells with and subject to the very real danger of violence from the common inmates too.

We can be given forcible psychiatric measures such as the chemical cosh of anti-psychotic drugs, electro-convulsive shocks to destroy your brain or lobotomy to render us mentally incapable. All for simply having opinions and expressing them. The UK truly is an evil kingdom to get on the wrong side of, so naturally many would like to see change even change brought about by war.

http://scot.tk/judges.htm

Given how many good citizens of Britain are abused by the Queen's police, courts, prisons and mental hospitals it is likely that anyone fighting the crown in a responsible way - not targeting innocent civilians themselves - will have support. However the IRA were often very careless and killed civilians themselves so they too lost sympathy and support because of their actions.

So the UK government is not a British government when it is denying Irish or Scottish or English or Welsh or indeed British people our rights, such as the right to establish a republican nation state to defend ourselves against the Queen's forces, police, judges, courts, prisons, mental hospitals and so on.

So the British people were very conflicted ourselves by the troubles and whilst few supported the worst outrages of the IRA many were sympathetic to the just demands of the Irish people and wanted something sorted out for them. Many too were grateful to the intervention of American leaders in helping to add their support to the peace process.

So you know, I don't think it is a very clear cut matter when it comes to Americans funding Irish republican organisations but that's my view as a Scottish and British republican.

As for the UK, it's incompetent officers too are almost as bad as the Saudis - for example, the UK Charity Commission approved the "Interpal" charity which funded Hamas even after it had been designated as a terrorist organisation by the European Union.

http://scot.tk/shoulderofhypocrit.htm

You have to bear in mind that kingdoms are typically grossly badly managed and parts of the kingdom can be waging a terrorist war by proxy while other parts of the kingdom know nothing about it. It is a similar story in a military dictatorship like Pakistan while the Pakistani military intelligence service the ISI secretly sponsors the Taliban and Al Qaeda most Pakistanis know nothing about what the military is doing.

This issue is responsibility - who ought to be held responsible for the terrorist outrages a kingdom funds - and it is right to hold the head of state responsible - the monarch in a kingdom - and it is right to hold those officers of the state who are involved with the sponsoring of terrorism responsible.

Peter Dow
01-13-2014, 06:43 PM
A yes, government inflicted piracy is always well-received, no blowback there whatsoever...
Like I said -

"Apart from the countries whose oil we've taken, who will be angry about it all of course but then they are already angry enough to be sponsoring terrorism so no change there."

So, no, those countries who are losing their profits won't receive it well. So what? What are they going to do that will bother our navies very much? Do another 9/11? Haven't they been trying to do another 9/11 since 9/11?

It's time to confront our enemies and tell the people of those countries flat that if they want their oil profits back they'll have to eliminate our enemies from running their countries.

If we do this right, the blow back for our enemies will be terminal and we'll emerge stronger, much stronger.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/World_countries_Standard_%26_Poor%27s_ratings.svg/800px-World_countries_Standard_%26_Poor%27s_ratings.svg. png
World countries by Standard & Poor's Foreign Rating

http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/8217/condiaaa500.jpg
Condoleezza Rice for President - when only AAA will do

AJBIGJ
01-13-2014, 07:07 PM
For the first time in my life I have encountered someone who makes John McCain appear as a "Moderate" in the realm of foreign relations. Congratulations on that!

Peter Dow
01-26-2014, 03:12 AM
http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-afghanistan-troops-20140125,0,3666615.story#axzz3KbdLUU86

Los Angeles Times
Top general to ask Obama to keep more troops in Afghanistan
Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., who commands all international forces in Afghanistan, wants 10,000 U.S. troops to remain past 2014.

By David S. Cloud
January 24, 2014, 6:28 p.m.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. commander in Afghanistan is planning to go to the White House on Monday to argue for keeping about 10,000 troops in the country after this year, a subject that has exposed a fissure between some of President Obama's top advisors and the Pentagon.

Marine Corps Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., who commands all international forces in Afghanistan, is recommending that U.S. troops stay to help train Afghan forces and conduct counter-terrorism operations against Taliban insurgents and Al Qaeda-linked militants. All other U.S. troops will be withdrawn this year.

To make the deployment more attractive to a skeptical White House, Dunford says the 10,000 should pull out by 2017, when Obama leaves office, according to two officials, who confirmed a Wall Street Journal report. The Pentagon previously had favored deploying the troops for a decade.

But Vice President Joe Biden and other key White House aides favor leaving only 1,000 to 2,000 troops, said the officials, who spoke anonymously to discuss internal deliberations. Pentagon officials say a force that size is too small to protect itself while also conducting operations.

Biden argues that the insurgency has been contained after 13 years of war and that Afghan security forces are strong enough to preserve security in urban and other key areas. He also says a stable Afghanistan is no longer critical to halting terrorist attacks against the United States, one official said.

The Dunford plan has won support from Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Secretary of State John F. Kerry, CIA Director John Brennan and Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the officials said.

Biden's proposal is backed by Antony Blinken, the deputy national security advisor, and Douglas Lute, a retired Army general who now is U.S. ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Obama's national security advisor, Susan Rice, is a "wild card" who has not made clear which option she favors, one official said.

Taking sides on post-2014 troop levels, I'm for the 10,000 US troops + allies option outlined here as the Dunford plan supported by Hagel, Kerry, Brennan, Dempsey as barely enough for a sustainable military presence in Afghanistan against all foes.

I oppose the Biden 1,000 to 2,000 troops plan supported by Blinken & Lute for the reason stated by the Pentagon - it's too few troops for force protection.

2,000 troops is not enough troops to keep even one airbridge military base defended and the troops supplied by air against a sustained attack.

Potentially, it is 2,000 casualties or prisoners of war who would be at the mercy of a hostile army.

If it is only 2,000 troops then you'd better have plenty of helicopters to fly them all out in one night because they may have to leave Afghanistan in a hurry!

I do support Dunford's notion of concentrating the 10,000 in 2 main air bases and Bagram and Kandahar are his expected choices.

2 main air bases is far preferable to spreading them out in the "9 bases" proposal floated in earlier reports. The troops spread out in 9 bases would be too vulnerable.

The "2,000 to 3,000 troops from allied countries near Mazar-i-Sharif in the north, led by a German contingent, and Herat in the west, under Italian command" sounds reasonable and sustainable so long as the level of hostilities is routine.

Ideally, it would be preferable to keep not only Bagram, Kandahar, Mazar-i-Sharif and Herat open but Bastion air base too but that would require either a British contingent or more US troops than just the 10,000.

As a British republican and loyal friend and ally of the US, if I was commanding British forces I'd offer a 1/5th proportional contribution to whatever US troops at 10,000 or above - so I'd offer 2,000 British troops as 1/5th of 10,000 US troops.

It is my understanding that shamefully UK Prime Minister David Cameron is intent on withdrawing all British forces at the end of 2014. :no:

Once again this is a cautionary example to our American friends that royalists do not have the staying power and resolve of republicans and so the UK royals should not be as popular in the US as they seem to be.

The Queen and her governments are not as dependable a friend to the US as many Americans seem to think they are. The UK royalists are nowhere nearly as loyal to the US as British republicans like myself are.

Where I differ from Hagel and Kerry is that I don't think a signed BSA is an absolute requirement and if sufficient forces were available, an occupation option should be offered to the President, with objectives much the same as Dunford's plan for 10,000 but configured to resist even determined opposition from all foes attempting to expel our occupying forces.

I think it is important not to surrender our war on terror objectives to any Afghan President. If we tuck tail and run from Karzai or his successor then I don't see that as too different from running from the Taliban and their Pakistani ISI masters and we certainly don't want to be seen to be doing that!

Showing weakness in retreating from the enemy will only invite more aggression against us, more terrorism, more blackmail and extortion from Pakistan.

For the plan to occupy bases versus all foes then more investment is needed to secure the airbridges required to keep the troops supplied.

20,000 French troops proved to be insufficient when in 1954 they were guarding one airbridge military base at Dien Bien Phu, Vietnam when the French base was overrun by the Viet Minh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dien_Bien_Phu

The base needs to occupy a big area to defend the landing and takeoff fight paths vs enemy ground-to-air missiles and anti-aircraft gun-fire.

The area occupied by the French at Dien Bien Phu proved to be too small at only 2 x 5 miles.

Occupying a base area of at least 20 x 20 miles would be better, more practical to defend.

http://s25.postimg.org/x2jmx5r4f/base_defence2_768.jpg
Military base for the Global War on Terror by Peter Dow

One does need to defend a large perimeter to keep the enemy guns out of range of the base's runways.

Typically 1000 guards are required to defend one 1 base in routine circumstances to defend the perimeter defences alone.

If the Taliban are surged massively, perhaps supported by regular troops of Pakistan, Iran or even Afghanistan, and the enemy army brings artillery to bear and concentrates a sustained attack on one base, as did the Viet Minh at Dien Bien Phu then the base would need 10,000 guards to defend the base and win the battle.

Fewer troops are required if engineers build impenetrable wide perimeter defences, meaning vehicle barriers anti-tank minefields, infantry barriers, barbed wire, anti-personnel mine-fields - to a mine field thickness of 2 miles all around the base, and that could be 40 miles or more of a perimeter circumference to build - and the perimeter watched over 24/7 by guards in hardened machine gun positions.

http://s3.postimg.org/u5gzyi4b7/map310legend.jpg
Perimeter defences for a military base for the Global War on Terror by Peter Dow

http://s25.postimg.org/hyoa1kpzj/guntower.jpg
Gun tower for the perimeter defences of a military base for the Global War on Terror by Peter Dow

TJMAC77SP
01-26-2014, 04:51 AM
At least use well done photo-shopped images Pete. And................stop talking to yourself. Just post more pics of you in your 'uniform'. That is entertaining.

imported_LOAL-D
01-26-2014, 03:24 PM
Whoa, Peter Dow? Wow!

Peter Dow
02-07-2014, 02:58 AM
Afghanistan: What if no Bilateral Security Agreement gets signed?


Obama, Pentagon officials meet to discuss U.S. troops in Afghanistan
http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20140204/NEWS05/302040026/Obama-Pentagon-officials-meet-discuss-U-S-troops-Afghanistan

WASHINGTON — President Obama is meeting at the White House with his top commander in Afghanistan and other high-ranking Pentagon officials.

The White House said Tuesday’s meeting would include discussions about a possible U.S. presence in Afghanistan after the NAT0-led combat mission formally concludes there at the end of this year. However, spokesman Jay Carney says no decisions on that matter have been made.

The military has been pushing to keep up to 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan after 2014. But the White House says Obama won’t leave any American forces in Afghanistan unless Afghan President Hamid Karzai signs a bilateral security agreement.

Among the officials Obama was meeting with were Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan; Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel; and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey.

If the president decides himself not to leave any American forces in Afghanistan then he would be unnecessarily harming US interests to have US airbases in Afghanistan which would allow a better range of military options to counter terrorism in Afghanistan and especially in Pakistan where the dangers to the US of terrorists being supported by the Pakistani military are very great indeed.

Instead of making a gift to Karzai of the power to wreck US interests the president should consider instead using his option of ordering US forces to occupy airbases in Afghanistan even without a BSA signed if that was necessary.

What would it mean for the US and for Afghans' rights to control their own land if the US occupied bases in Afghanistan?

Afghanistan - US / NATO occupied bases and national sovereignty

The Afghan nation is not militarily capable of successfully defending the territorial integrity of its internationally recognised claim to sole jurisdiction over all the land of Afghanistan.

In other words, the Afghans can't stop the Taliban, an enemy force sponsored by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and others from invading Afghanistan and waging war against the Afghan nation with the secret aim to establish a vassal state for the Pakistani military empire.

Although Afghans tried to defend their country versus the Taliban before we invaded, they were not successful and the Taliban state of Afghanistan was established.

Even now, before we have fully drawn-down our forces to much below the level they were at before the surge ordered by President Obama, we see the Taliban operating unchallenged in parts of Afghanistan.

No shame on Afghans for failing to exclude an enemy presence in Afghanistan because it is a difficult, perhaps impossible country to secure the borders of - except perhaps in the depth of winter when many mountain border crossings become impassable.

Therefore while I do propose that US / NATO occupy airbases in Afghanistan - and to do so securely by fortifying versus the threat of siege so that the airbases can be supplied entirely by air - for the purposes of fighting enemy terrorists and their state sponsors in the region, the net effect of such a limited military occupation would be significantly to defend and to enhance the exercise of Afghan national sovereignty and sole jurisdiction over significant parts of Afghanistan that would be in severe jeopardy of being lost entirely to the Taliban should we withdraw all our forces or deploy only a trivial force level in an insecure way as mere potential hostages for the Taliban.

In other words, the writ of the national government of Afghanistan will run over more of Afghanistan with us there as occupiers of a limited number of bases, perhaps 4, than us not there at all.

Lest we forget, we are in a state of war against state sponsored terrorism and in times of war then legal technicalities of sole jurisdiction of national government sometimes have to be infringed upon.

We have our own national sovereignty of the US / NATO and allied nations to put first (which is threatened by terrorists sponsored by states in the region) before questions of Afghan national sovereignty though no democrat such as myself would ever be insensitive to such important matters.

I propose that we sign BSAs and SOFAs with any and all representatives of the people of Afghanistan who wish us to maintain our military presence in parts of Afghanistan. I would seek above all the signature of candidates for the Afghan presidency.

One such signature would be sufficient to justify our continuing presence, more would be better but I do not think it would be necessary to either have BSAs or SOFAs signed with either the elected president of Afghanistan or by the speaker of the parliament of Afghanistan.

Sure that would be nice to have the representatives of a majority of Afghan votes signing a BSA & SOFA. That would be worthwhile but not so necessary as to compel us to make foolish compromises with our security - to agree foolishly not to launch counter-terrorism raids from our bases against targets in Afghanistan and Pakistan, to agree foolishly not to fortify our airbases versus the threat of siege so that our supplies could be blocked and our forces held to ransom and so on.

Greedy rulers like Karzai and those of Pakistan seek a stranglehold on our forces to exert leverage, to blackmail and to extort money and power from us, making us weaker while they grow stronger at our expense. That would end if my approach is adopted by US / NATO.

So as far as I am concerned there is no "Karzai veto" or "Afghan president veto" or "Afghan parliament veto".

The power of a national veto can be lost in war and it was lost as far as Afghanistan and Pakistan are concerned on 9/11.

Now at least we can be honest about our limited but necessary infringements upon Afghan territory which contrasts with the dishonesty of the secret infringements of the Pakistani military which sponsors the Taliban precisely to remove Afghan national authority over all of Afghanistan.

One somewhat similar example to think of is the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This military base is on the island of Cuba but it does not significantly infringe upon Cuban national sovereignty - which is much more threatened daily by the Castro dictatorship than by the base.

If the Afghans and Pakistanis can cease state sponsoring of terrorism then they have as little to fear from US / NATO Afghan airbases as do the Cuban people from the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay.

Likewise as the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay is not a hostage to the Castros then the Castros are not able to get rich with a veto over the US Naval Base operations, are not able to blackmail and to extort ever more for permission to remain.

So it would be with US / NATO Afghan bases. We would be there without fear or favour; offering friendship and support to all who would be our real friends but resolute in confronting our enemies.

Peter Dow
02-07-2014, 03:02 AM
Americans dropping dead to terrorist attacks after 'Drop-Dead Date'


Obama Weighs All Afghanistan Options in Meeting Generals
Bloomberg Politics
By Gopal Ratnam and David Lerman Feb 4, 2014 7:54 PM GM
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-04/obama-weighs-all-afghanistan-options-in-meeting-generals.html

The Obama administration is considering its options to withdraw some or all U.S. forces from Afghanistan as time runs out for a new security agreement, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said.

“They’re planning for all options,” Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said after a closed-door briefing today with defense officials at the Capitol. “They have to.”

...

‘Drop-Dead Date’

Several senators today said they’ve concluded that Karzai will never sign the agreement and are looking past him toward a successor. Levin said waiting for the next president would give the U.S. and NATO allies enough time to plan for a limited military presence after this year.

“Really, the drop-dead date is the next president,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a Republican member of the Armed Services Committee.
http://www.1913intel.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/nuke_pic1.jpg
American city nuked after the so-called 'Drop-Dead Date'

What Senator Lindsey Graham doesn't realise is that he and President Obama if they agree with a "drop-dead date" policy may be condemning Americans in American cities to be the ones who are dropping dead after the 'drop-dead date'.

Why should American civilians in cities like New York be the ones to drop dead?

That's not what Senator Graham has in mind. He thinks the ones to drop dead would be Afghans. Not so. It would be Americans.

How could this be?

Well for example, if the Pakistani military give a nuclear weapon to an Al-Qaeda terrorist to set off in an American city then it will be American civilians dropping dead from a nuclear blast.

Plenty of Americans dropped dead on 9/11.

Plenty of Americans would drop dead in a terrorist nuclear attack on an American city.

Now that is the danger that Senator Graham and his "drop-dead date" policy are heading Americans into.

So before anyone thinks that a "drop dead date" policy is clever and a good sound bite then we first need to look at why the danger is to American civilians in American cities dropping dead.

Senator Graham is the Senator from South Carolina and the largest metro in that state is Greenville with a population of more than 800,000.

Now if Greenville is unlucky and Al-Qaeda terrorists choose Greenville to set off a terrorist nuclear bomb in then very many of those 800,000 American citizens of Greenville will be dropping dead.

Now I am sure that Senator Graham does not have in mind the good citizens of Greenville would be the ones to be dropping dead after his "drop-dead date" policy had gone in to operation.

Nevertheless Senator Graham and other Senators really ought to think of that scenario or some other American metro being destroyed by a terrorist nuclear weapon before he goes to the media boasting about his "drop-dead date" policy.

Someone needs to explain to the good Senator that all those in the Oval Office who think a "drop-dead date" is a good policy may be condemning American civilians in American cities to be dropping dead some time after their much flaunted "drop-dead date".

Why?

Because if we pull our forces out of Afghanistan after a "drop-dead Date" then the Pakistani military will believe that their terrorists are winning the war on terror, that the US is weak and on the retreat, doesn't have the will to win, will pay billions of dollars and then go home.

The Pakistani military will see that as a green light to intensify terrorist attacks in America with which to make further blackmail and extortion demands on the USA.

The Pakistani military got $10 billion in military aid after 9/11 and if they get away with that, if the USA retreats from Pakistan having done nothing but give money to the USA's enemies in the Pakistani military then the next terrorist attack will be bigger and more damaging with a view to get even more than $10 billion.

I do not know how much the Pakistani military will be looking to get from the USA after their nuclear attack on an American city but I would expect that they would be expecting a great deal more than $10 billion - maybe $100 billion or more. I don't know.

But if the USA is weak and paying up to terrorists then they will terrorise the USA even more to get as much money as they can get.

We need to keep the Afghan bases to wage war on our enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan - both the terrorists sponsored by the ISI of the Pakistani military and we need to wage war on the ISI itself and all Pakistani generals and former generals who are dictating policy to sponsor terrorism.

We need to keep the Afghan bases without paying Afghanistan anything or giving any ground whatsoever in the war on terror.

Keep the bases as an act of war against our enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

That is the best way to be make sure that our enemies in Pakistan know that we are not retreating, that we are still at war with our enemies in Pakistan and that we will hold them accountable one day for 9/11 and certainly even more so if there are any further big terrorist attacks on the USA like that.

We must teach Pakistan accountability for their terrorists and if we withdraw our forces after a drop dead date then Pakistan will have escaped accountability for 9/11 and our enemies in Pakistan will believe that they can escape accountability for another such massive terrorist attack on America, perhaps next time with nuclear weapons.

So don't use the phrase "drop-dead date" except to explain how stupid and dangerous such a policy is because it will be Americans dropping dead.

Don't abandon our Afghan bases. Keep them even if the next Afghan president doesn't sign the BSA.

That's the way to win the war on terror.
A 'drop-dead date' is the way to lose.

DocBones
02-07-2014, 03:05 PM
Pete,

The days of colonialism are over.

Peter Dow
02-07-2014, 04:38 PM
Pete,

The days of colonialism are over.
Guantanamo Bay US Naval Base is not a "colony" even though the US doesn't have Castro's permission to be there and neither would US / NATO airbases in Afghanistan be a "colony" just because we didn't have a signed BSA.

The issue is not "colonialism" the issue is not having another major terrorist attack on our homelands like 9/11, maybe next time with nukes.


Americans dropping dead to terrorist attacks after 'Drop-Dead Date'


http://www.1913intel.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/nuke_pic1.jpg
American city nuked after the so-called 'Drop-Dead Date'

Why?

Because if we pull our forces out of Afghanistan after a "drop-dead Date" then the Pakistani military will believe that their terrorists are winning the war on terror, that the US is weak and on the retreat, doesn't have the will to win, will pay billions of dollars and then go home.

The Pakistani military will see that as a green light to intensify terrorist attacks in America with which to make further blackmail and extortion demands on the USA.


That's the issue. 9/11 happened without colonialism and the next 9/11 with nukes will happen without US / NATO bases in Afghanistan.

You are missing the danger. Missing the threat. Don't say your friends didn't warn you that retreating from Afghanistan was inviting another mass casualty attack on the US because I just did.

DocBones
02-07-2014, 08:27 PM
Peter Dow,

I know that you are sounding the alarm about us and you guys, pulling out. Believe me, I believe in a bit of what you are saying. I recall Viet Nam, where we never lost the battles, but we said, "That's enough. We are pulling out with honor."

Then the North Vietnamese took over and we spent a lot of lives over nothing.

Now we are preparing to pull out again, and the bad guys may just wait until the last American and the last Brit is gone, to go back in and take the victory.

We may be facing some of the radical Muslims coming on over and using some sort of weapon, from a pressure cooker, up to a dirty nuke, if not a full on nuke.

You don't think that a lot us aren't worried, at least a bit? A lot of the people that post on here have been in Afghanistan, Iraq, or both. Now the military is in the midst of a squeeze play, and a lot of people are going to be put out of the services, come hell or high water. They are going to be in a place where jobs are scarce, and maybe they have to worry about getting a roof over their heads, and a hot meal, once in awhile.

So, yes, we do have that in the back of our minds. But...

When times are such as they are, a lot of people just won't have time to be worrying about what might happen to their country, Muslim wise.

We all know that some of the suicide minded Muslims can hardly wait to come over here, either past our porous borders, as 'good' students, and so on.

If we were to stand tall and say "Look here, pilgrims, we are not leaving until all of you love the GB and the US of A.," what would that do to the paradise minded Muslims?

It won't stop them from achieving their goals of murdering all of the non believers that they can.

Have you and have we stopped a bunch of want to be 72 virgin bound guys?

Yes.

Have we stopped them all?

No. They are just waiting to 'pull the pin.'

As long as we live in a freer world than they do, they will never stop trying to wage their fatwas against us.

You keep coming back in here to press your ideas onwards. That is what freedom is all about.

Part of why you are just blown off is that you have never been a part of the real military. Another reason is that at one time or another, some one has come up with your plans, and they were largely discarded because for some reason or another, your plans just don't work.

Another reason for non acceptance could be that no general wants to hear of a new plan for, say, setting up a forwards op base the way that you have described setting one up,is the fact that with suicidal attackers, their choice of weapons, including mortars, IEDs, RPGs, could easily take out the outlying soldiers, who are out, defending the base.

No general is going to listen to Sergeant Whatsisname trying to tell him how to win a war. That is not going to happen.

The Commander in Chief Obama Hussein has decided that we'll be out by the end of the year. He has never served a single day in the Armed Forces. He certainly won't change his plans, no matter how good or how bad a plan might be.

We are all just cogs in the machine that Obama uses to do what he wants. Now, do you think, with many of us perched on the edge of getting rifed (not in my case, I am retired), that anyone with even a great plan are going to sacrifice his or her career, by upstaging those placed above them?

Pete. I am not saying that your plans are good. I am not saying that your plans are bad. What I am saying is that you should email or talk to someone that has the real power. With you coming in here and splashing all of your ideas about is going to get you nowhere, at all.

It hasn't in the past, nor will it gain you anything in the future, unless you present your ideas to the correct people. However, you are probably fated to be unlistened to.

Dude, do what you have to do. Good luck with your plans.

DocBones

Peter Dow
02-08-2014, 02:31 AM
Peter Dow,

I know that you are sounding the alarm about us and you guys, pulling out. Believe me, I believe in a bit of what you are saying. I recall Viet Nam, where we never lost the battles, but we said, "That's enough. We are pulling out with honor."

Then the North Vietnamese took over and we spent a lot of lives over nothing.
Well I wouldn't say it was "over nothing". The US had its anti-communist principles which it fought for - the communists fought for theirs and won the land but the communists didn't win the war for their principles, not globally they didn't.

The US in Vietnam showed it was no pushover, wasn't to be trifled with, anyone risking war with the US would pay a high price.

We didn't see Vietnam sponsoring suicide bombers attacking the US after the US pulled out. They had an idea what they'd get if they tried that.

The hot war between the US and anti-communist forces became more of a cold war but the US stuck by its principles it had fought for so bravely in Vietnam and in less than 20 years later after the pull out from Vietnam, the US was vindicated when the Soviet Union, one of the main backers of the communist governments Vietnam and other countries thereabouts folded, and the US won the cold war, at least with the Soviets though the Chinese are still hanging on to some of the old communist ideas.



Now we are preparing to pull out again, and the bad guys may just wait until the last American and the last Brit is gone, to go back in and take the victory.
They may do but only if we pull out or get pushed out. If we dig in and do so competently, then it will be a different outcome.

In this regard the US has more staying power than the UK which was first to leave in Iraq and is planning to pull out all its combat forces after 2014 even if a BSA is signed with the US and a SOFA is signed with NATO.

I'm not fan of the UK. I may be a British patriot but I don't think the Queen and her prime minsters are anything to boast about - quite the reverse - very often they are a disgrace.



We may be facing some of the radical Muslims coming on over and using some sort of weapon, from a pressure cooker, up to a dirty nuke, if not a full on nuke.

You don't think that a lot us aren't worried, at least a bit?
It is only right to be alert to the dangers, raising the alarm but that's not done so as to give people cold sweats or nightmares but to start a conversation about how best to defend against the threat, how best to attack the enemy's war machine.


A lot of the people that post on here have been in Afghanistan, Iraq, or both.
Well these are the experienced professionals that I'd most like to take a look at my plan. Because if they will back my plan or help me improve my plan then that is a stamp of approval that gets a plan more consideration in political circles where decisions are made.



Now the military is in the midst of a squeeze play, and a lot of people are going to be put out of the services, come hell or high water. They are going to be in a place where jobs are scarce, and maybe they have to worry about getting a roof over their heads, and a hot meal, once in awhile.
To my mind, that's not fair, that's not right, when people have served their country so bravely to be cast out like that. It's not for me to make US domestic policy but I would say that there's every reason to put more of the US defense budget into military service pensions so that veterans can at least keep a roof over their heads and eat - have the basics - then look for work to get additional spending money and luxuries on top. To leave vets struggling for the bare necessities of life is the wrong allocation of defense funding - the wrong priority in my opinion.

It's not as if those who have served are not entitled to a decent pension. It's been earned so for the government to refuse to pay what is owed, to cut pensions back, is like cheating veterans and I can't go along with that.


So, yes, we do have that in the back of our minds. But...

When times are such as they are, a lot of people just won't have time to be worrying about what might happen to their country, Muslim wise.
Well I wouldn't characterise the enemy as "Muslims". There's plenty Muslims who have no interest in being a suicide bomber for the Pakistani military Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) or the Saudi royal family - the two main state sponsors of jihadi terrorism.


We all know that some of the suicide minded Muslims can hardly wait to come over here, either past our porous borders, as 'good' students, and so on.
Well a country can always improve defense -homeland security - but to win a war against terror that is going to take a good offense - military action or economic sanctions or propaganda against the enemy war machine.


If we were to stand tall and say "Look here, pilgrims, we are not leaving until all of you love the GB and the US of A.," what would that do to the paradise minded Muslims?
The airbases are not about what we are saying to Afghans, Pakistanis or Arabs. We seize control over their satellite TV and do our saying to them that way. What the paradise minded Muslims believe is what we tell them to believe on their satellite TV.

No the airbases are for preparing and then launching military action against the enemy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. What the paradise minded Muslims do when we target them in military action is they get to find out sooner than they thought whether it really is a paradise that awaits them.


It won't stop them from achieving their goals of murdering all of the non believers that they can.
Sure my plan stops them,


Have you and have we stopped a bunch of want to be 72 virgin bound guys?

Yes.

Have we stopped them all?

No. They are just waiting to 'pull the pin.'

As long as we live in a freer world than they do, they will never stop trying to wage their fatwas against us.
Then we give them different fatwas. We take control over their satellite TV, put on our Muslim cleric who tells them their fatwa this week is to go out and kill one of our enemies, like the Pakistani ISI who have been telling Muslims to fight jihad against us.

We blow up the University of Jihad where they get their anti-Western fatwas from, take out those like Bin Laden who have been broadcasting those enemy fatwas.



You keep coming back in here to press your ideas onwards. That is what freedom is all about.
It is DocBones and I appreciate when I get a considered response like yours. Thanks for taking the time.


Part of why you are just blown off is that you have never been a part of the real military. Another reason is that at one time or another, some one has come up with your plans, and they were largely discarded because for some reason or another, your plans just don't work.
I don't agree. I think history shows that famous military disasters happen when there hasn't been a well thought-out, precisely-prepared plan and the military has just gone in and improvised an inadequate series of decisions.


Another reason for non acceptance could be that no general wants to hear of a new plan for, say, setting up a forwards op base the way that you have described setting one up,is the fact that with suicidal attackers, their choice of weapons, including mortars, IEDs, RPGs, could easily take out the outlying soldiers, who are out, defending the base.
One of the points I've made all along is that we should never have had lots of forward operating bases along the Afghan / Pakistan border that were hard to supply and to defend. I've always been for concentrating our defences where we need them - our airbases and main bases and supply roads. Not doing so, has cost us a lot of lives in ambushes and road-side bombs.

Now considering my proposed perimeter defences for airbases, I don't see how any such attack as you've described could succeed against such defences as these.

http://s3.postimg.org/u5gzyi4b7/map310legend.jpg

First point to note is that all the outlying defenders are snug in heavily armoured towers while on duty.

http://s25.postimg.org/hyoa1kpzj/guntower.jpg

And they enter and leave the towers by internal staircases and tunnels that lead towards the central base. They are very difficult to hit at any time.

You've got to explain how suicide bombers get anywhere near the defenders. It sure isn't easy.

Mortars of course can hit the towers and that's a method of attack which is expected. The problem for the attackers is the towers have mortars of their own which can fire back - and the towers are armoured, so incoming fire does much less damage on the towers compared to return fire from the towers. The best hope for the enemy mortar team is if they can avoid being spotted but the towers have a good line of sight and once the enemy mortar teams open fire they are going to give their position away very quickly.

IEDs again do nothing to an airbase which is supplied by air because the enemy can't get into the base to lay IEDs inside the base where our forces might be driving around.

RPGs are of limited threat because the minefield is about 2 miles wide - 3000 yards - and for example the range of an RPG7 is only 1000 yards. So the enemy has got a lot of minefield to pick his way through, all the while being shot at from the towers. He's a dead man long before he gets within range of the towers. Even if he gets that far, the towers are armoured and can take a number of RPG hits no problem.


No general is going to listen to Sergeant Whatsisname trying to tell him how to win a war. That is not going to happen.
Well I'm not a sergeant. If they won't listen to my plans to win the war now maybe they'll listen if I get appointed to a higher military rank above them - like NATO's Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe for example.


The Commander in Chief Obama Hussein has decided that we'll be out by the end of the year. He has never served a single day in the Armed Forces. He certainly won't change his plans, no matter how good or how bad a plan might be.
Well he may do. If his advisors get to hear of a good plan, he may change his plans. I think I should let them see my plans so at least there's an option there for him that he wasn't thinking of before.


We are all just cogs in the machine that Obama uses to do what he wants. Now, do you think, with many of us perched on the edge of getting rifed (not in my case, I am retired), that anyone with even a great plan are going to sacrifice his or her career, by upstaging those placed above them?
Quite right. That's why it is a good idea for me to be the one to explain my plans in public. I've nothing to lose (except my life if some jihadi decides to take me out). What I mean is that I have no job to lose for publishing military plans.


Pete. I am not saying that your plans are good. I am not saying that your plans are bad. What I am saying is that you should email or talk to someone that has the real power. With you coming in here and splashing all of your ideas about is going to get you nowhere, at all.

It hasn't in the past, nor will it gain you anything in the future, unless you present your ideas to the correct people. However, you are probably fated to be unlistened to.
Well the great thing about these public forums is that anybody can come along and read what's here - maybe one day the correct people.


Dude, do what you have to do. Good luck with your plans.

DocBones
Thanks very much and thanks for replying!

Max Power
02-08-2014, 02:38 AM
http://s25.postimg.org/hyoa1kpzj/guntower.jpg


http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/i-think-this-might-be-photoshopped.jpg

Peter Dow
02-08-2014, 06:52 PM
Obama going soft on war on Al Qaeda


WSJ: U.S. to Curb Pakistan Drone Program
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304450904579365112070806176?mg=ren o64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB1000 1424052702304450904579365112070806176.html&fpid=2,7,121,122,201,401,641,1009

The CIA has long added new targets to a longer "kill list" on a rolling basis as old targets are hit.

Now, U.S. officials say, the "kill list" is not self-replenishing, a change long sought by Islamabad. "By taking one off, we're not automatically putting one on," a senior U.S. official said. As a result, the number of targets on the list are decreasing as the CIA's drones focus on a more limited number of high-level targets that "will enable us to conclude the program," the official said.

And here are the headlines of the next few years (maybe)



US stops adding al Qaeda leaders to 'kill list'.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2014/02/us_stops_adding_al_qaeda_leade.php


US announces peace talks with Al-Qaeda.



US president signs peace treaty with Al-Qaeda.



Pentagon purges military to quell dissent against Al-Qaeda treaty.



Rump US military stages joint exercises with Al-Qaeda.



Obama appointed senior Al-Qaeda commander in America.



US military joins Al-Qaeda renamed as "Al-Qaeda in America".



Al-Qaeda in America occupies Congress and the Supreme court.



US Congress members and Supreme Court judges beheaded.



Al-Qaeda in America defeats National Rifle Association in last stand.



Al-Qaeda declares Sharia Law in America.



Barack Obama gets his 2nd Nobel Peace Prize.

Yes he can? :shock:

Peter Dow
03-20-2014, 10:53 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/magazine/what-pakistan-knew-about-bin-laden.html?_r=0
What Pakistan Knew About Bin Laden
The New York Times
By CARLOTTA GALL. MARCH 19, 2014
...

Soon after the Navy SEAL raid on Bin Laden’s house, a Pakistani official told me that the United States had direct evidence that the ISI chief, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, knew of Bin Laden’s presence in Abbottabad.
http://s25.postimg.org/dh5ett2tr/Ahmed_Shuja_Pasha_800.jpg
Pakistani ISI chief "knew of Bin Laden's presence in Abbottabad"
Lieutenant General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, was the Director-General of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan's main intelligence service, from October 2008 until March 2012.


The information came from a senior United States official, and I guessed that the Americans had intercepted a phone call of Pasha’s or one about him in the days after the raid. “He knew of Osama’s whereabouts, yes,” the Pakistani official told me. The official was surprised to learn this and said the Americans were even more so. Pasha had been an energetic opponent of the Taliban and an open and cooperative counterpart for the Americans at the ISI. “Pasha was always their blue-eyed boy,” the official said. But in the weeks and months after the raid, Pasha and the ISI press office strenuously denied that they had any knowledge of Bin Laden’s presence in Abbottabad.

Colleagues at The Times began questioning officials in Washington about which high-ranking officials in Pakistan might also have been aware of Bin Laden’s whereabouts, but everyone suddenly clammed up. It was as if a decision had been made to contain the damage to the relationship between the two governments. “There’s no smoking gun,” officials in the Obama administration began to say.

The haul of handwritten notes, letters, computer files and other information collected from Bin Laden’s house during the raid suggested otherwise, however. It revealed regular correspondence between Bin Laden and a string of militant leaders who must have known he was living in Pakistan, including Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, the founder of Lashkar-e-Taiba, a pro-Kashmiri group that has also been active in Afghanistan, and Mullah Omar of the Taliban. Saeed and Omar are two of the ISI’s most important and loyal militant leaders. Both are protected by the agency. Both cooperate closely with it, restraining their followers from attacking the Pakistani state and coordinating with Pakistan’s greater strategic plans. Any correspondence the two men had with Bin Laden would probably have been known to their ISI handlers.

...

According to one inside source, the ISI actually ran a special desk assigned to handle Bin Laden. It was operated independently, led by an officer who made his own decisions and did not report to a superior. He handled only one person: Bin Laden. I was sitting at an outdoor cafe when I learned this, and I remember gasping, though quietly so as not to draw attention. (Two former senior American officials later told me that the information was consistent with their own conclusions.) This was what Afghans knew, and Taliban fighters had told me, but finally someone on the inside was admitting it. The desk was wholly deniable by virtually everyone at the ISI — such is how supersecret intelligence units operate — but the top military bosses knew about it, I was told.

America’s failure to fully understand and actively confront Pakistan on its support and export of terrorism is one of the primary reasons President Karzai has become so disillusioned with the United States. As American and NATO troops prepare to withdraw from Afghanistan by the end of this year, the Pakistani military and its Taliban proxy forces lie in wait, as much a threat as any that existed in 2001.


The buck stops with the President, Obama. Why is Obama turning a blind eye to the enemy rooted in the Pakistani military?

This is not Obama, the community organizer, representing the interests of the American communities threatened by a Pakistani nuclear bomb which the ISI could give, claiming "theft", to their Al Qaeda terrorists for a devastating attack on the US homeland.

This is Obama, the peace-prize winner, wishing a legacy of "war is over", and welcoming advice to surrender Afghanistan to the Pakistani military from Pakistan's woman inside the White House, Robin Raphel.

This is Obama, the defamation lawyer, denying the incompetence of his Secretaries of Defense - Gates, Panetta & Hagel - and their Pentagon advisers who have founded their failing Afghan strategy on co-operation with the treacherous Pakistani military, depending on Pakistan's roads and air-space for US and NATO logistics purposes but at the price of taking off the table the winning Afghan and war on terror strategy of regime-change of Pakistan via policies of ultimatums, sanctions and war under the Bush Doctrine to root out the generals and former generals comprising the Pakistani military dictatorship which continues to sponsor jihadi terrorism and imperialism behind the scenes of an elected but relatively powerless government of Pakistan.

Carlotta Gall's excellent article is consistent with the findings of the BBC's Panorama documentary "SECRET PAKISTAN" (2011).

The BBC's "SECRET PAKISTAN"

Part 1. Double Cross

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSinK-dVrig

Peter Dow
03-20-2014, 10:54 PM
Part 2. Backlash

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5-lSSC9dSE

http://s25.postimg.org/jkubzpc3z/afpakmissionart_599.jpg

The AfPak Mission links

Channel http://www.youtube.com/user/AfpakMission
Forum http://scot.tk/forum/viewforum.php?f=26
Twitter http://twitter.com/AfPakMission
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/afpakmission/
Blog http://afpakmission.wordpress.com/

sandsjames
03-20-2014, 11:14 PM
"They're coming to take me away...Ho Ho...they're coming to take me away..."

Peter Dow
03-27-2014, 12:11 PM
http://s25.postimg.org/4z6478lfz/censored_NYT.jpg


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/business/media/times-report-on-al-qaeda-is-censored-in-pakistan.html
Times Report on Al Qaeda Is Censored in Pakistan

An article about Pakistan’s relationship to Al Qaeda, and its knowledge of Osama bin Laden’s last hiding place within its borders, was censored from the front page of about 9,000 copies of the International New York Times in Pakistan on Saturday, apparently removed by a local paper that has a partnership to distribute The Times.

An image of the front page — with a large blank space where the article appeared in other editions — traveled rapidly around social media on Saturday. A spokeswoman for The New York Times, Eileen Murphy, said that the decision by the partner paper, The Express Tribune, had been made “without our knowledge or agreement.”

The partner was recently the subject of an attack by an extremist group, she said. “While we understand that our publishing partners are sometimes faced with local pressures,” she said, “we regret any censorship of our journalism.”

Though the article appeared to have been excised from all copies of the newspaper distributed in Pakistan, the story seemed to be available to Pakistani readers online, Ms. Murphy said. There was no answer at a number listed for the partner paper’s parent company, the Lakson Group, on Saturday.

It was not the first time the paper had seen its content changed by local partners. This month, sections of an article about prostitution and other sex businesses in China were blanked out in Pakistani editions of The International New York Times.

In January, a Malaysian printing firm blacked out the faces of pigs, also in The International New York Times. The BBC reported that the firm said it did so because Malaysia is “a Muslim country.”

The article in Saturday’s edition, by Carlotta Gall, explores the complex relationship between Pakistani authorities and militant Islamic extremism — which its powerful spy agency, Inter-Services Intelligence, has long been accused of supporting with the aim of furthering its own strategic interests. The article, which ran in The New York Times Magazine in domestic editions, is excerpted from a book by Ms. Gall, “The Wrong Enemy: America in Afghanistan, 2001-2014,” which will be published next month by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

In May of last year, The New York Times’ Islamabad bureau chief, Declan Walsh, was ordered to leave the country on the eve of national elections. His visa has not yet been reinstated, though the country’s prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, promised last week to review the case again.

Pakistan remains a dangerous place for reporters, with at least 46 killed there in the last decade, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, an advocacy group.

In her article, Ms. Gall recounted being violently intimidated when she reported on the links to Islamic extremists, and Pakistani journalists have been beaten or murdered in attacks that some claim have involved national security or intelligence forces.

Again the extremists groups in Pakistan which are attacking, violently indimidating and killing journalists are directed by the Pakistani military ISI.

The ISI censors newspapers and murders journalists because it wants its secret war against the West kept secret.


Bin Laden's Sugar Generals
The Pakistani Generals who provided for Osama Bin Laden while taking $ billions from the USA.

Ashfaq Parvez Kayani & Ahmad Shuja Pasha

http://s25.postimg.org/5jazs5pjj/L_Kayani_R_Pasha_800.jpg

The enemy Pakistani generals who Obama pays with $ billions of American taxpayer money as they've sponsored terrorists to attack our homelands and kill our soldiers in Afghanistan.

Chief of Army Staff, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani appointed Pasha as director general of Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), on 29 September 2008.

Previously, Kayani himself had served as director of the ISI from October 2004 to October 2007 and accordingly would have been responsible for providing safe houses for Bin Laden and other state sponsored terrorists during that period.

Directors General of the Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence since 9/11

October 1999 – October 2001: LGen Mahmud Ahmed
October 2001 – October 2004: LGen Ehsan ul Haq
October 2004 – October 2007: LGen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani
October 2007 – October 2008: LGen Nadeem Taj
October 2008 – 19 March 2012: LGen Ahmad Shuja Pasha
19 March 2012 – present: LGen Zaheerul Islam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-Services_Intelligence#Directors_General
Full list of DGs of the ISI, from 1948

OBAMA's EVIL MASTERS

http://s25.postimg.org/cqcoo10gf/L_Ahmad_Shuja_Pasha_R_Ashfaq_Parvex_Kayani_800.jpg

http://s25.postimg.org/d8l4270r3/obamatears.jpg

OBAMA - NEVER BEFORE HAS A PRESIDENT BROUGHT A SUPERPOWER SO LOW

AFcynic
03-27-2014, 04:57 PM
I don't know about the rest of you, but I would absolutely LOVE it if Peter Dow commented on more than just this thread.

Pedro - your insight on the subject of Afghanistan is astoundingly deep. I humbly request that you share some more of that rapier wit on the other topics discussed in this forum. Personally, I'd love to watch you and WildJoker have a gentleman's disagreement on a wide variety of our more pressing social issues. Perhaps you can discuss the follies of government accounting with SomeRandomGuy. You'd brighten up the doldrums of this forum with your constant presence.

Pete - Don't let the prison of your mind hold you back. Unleash your fingers, and destroy that writer's block!

Peter Dow
04-11-2014, 01:25 AM
http://s25.postimg.org/t4yw6b7gv/Rasmussen_Kayani_Bin_Laden_830.jpg

It ought to worry NATO that the NATO Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen was so naive, gullible and foolish as in January 2010 when he engaged in diplomacy with the enemy Pakistani generals who had been providing VIP protection to Osama Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan.

It's not the job of NATO Secretary General to spend his (or her) valuable time on diplomacy with military enemies whose secret agent terrorist and insurgent forces have attacked NATO countries and our people many times.

The NATO countries have diplomats of their own. We didn't set NATO up to do more diplomacy but to offer military leadership to defend us from our enemies by military means!

But Rasmussen does things his own way.

Maybe Rasmussen thinks it is better if he, as NATO Secretary General, does diplomacy with our military enemies? Maybe he prefers appeasement to war?

Maybe Rasmussen actually has his head in the sand, is in denial about the treacherous nature of the Pakistani military high command and he really thinks Pakistani generals like Kayani are to be trusted?


NATO Military Committee concludes two days meetings in Brussels
NATO Website, 27 Jan. 2010 http://www.nato.int/ims/news/2010/n100127e.html

Regarding the regional approach, Pakistan Chief of the Army, General Kayani, briefed in depth the Committee on the Pakistani current strategy and on the ongoing operations against terrorism. Recognizing the necessity for continued cooperation with ISAF, he emphasized Pakistan’s role as a key enabler for success in Afghanistan.

Rasmussen is supposed to be defending NATO countries from our enemies, not shaking hands with enemy generals like we are "all for one and one for all" with our enemies! :no:

http://s25.postimg.org/xs4y82utr/threemusketeers_GWOT2.jpg

Not content with misleading NATO since 2009, Rasmussen has recommended a successor in the same mould of clueless and incompetent former prime ministers of kingdoms - Jens Stoltenberg, former PM of the Kingdom of Norway - who threatens to doom NATO to years of more bad leadership after Rasmussen has retired!
:yikes:
http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pictures/2013_05_130508a-sg-norway/20130508_130508a-001_rdax_600x399.JPG
Anders Fogh Rasmussen (left) and Jens Stoltenberg (right) - a right pair of royalist idiots

See also the thread with topic title
"Royalist Stoltenberg to head NATO, harming democracy, helping enemies" at ths link
http://forums.militarytimes.com/showthread.php?1597840-Royalist-Stoltenberg-to-head-NATO-harming-democracy-helping-enemies

Vrake
04-11-2014, 01:38 AM
Are you kidding me? Kayani got the Navy Battle "E" ribbon as his top award and can't even remember to put on the device?

Peter Dow
04-11-2014, 02:00 AM
Are you kidding me?
No, I don't think so. About what?


Kayani got the Navy Battle "E" ribbon as his top award and can't even remember to put on the device?
It seems then that the US Navy has been equally naive, gullible and foolish as Anders Fogh Rasmussen to give an award to an enemy Pakistani general like Kayani, a military commander of the Pakistani military which sponsored Al Qaeda to carry out the attack on the USS Cole in October 2000.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Qm_AW4Vi7w


Wikipedia: The USS Cole Bombing

The USS Cole bombing was a suicide attack against the United States Navy guided-missile destroyer USS Cole (DDG-67) on 12 October 2000, while it was harbored and being refueled in the Yemen port of Aden. 17 American sailors were killed, and 39 were injured. This event was the deadliest attack against a United States Naval vessel since 1987.
The terrorist organization al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing
The Wikipedia article notes that a US Judge held Sudan liable for the attack but all states, all militaries of all countries, including especially Pakistan, which supported Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden are just as liable as Sudan I would say.

The US Navy ought to be more careful about giving awards to Pakistani generals whose military are trying to blow up US ships. Maybe the US Navy should be thinking more about imposing a naval blockade on Pakistan, at least as far as Pakistani military vessels are concerned? Of course it would be up to the US President to give the orders but the US Navy could stop all Pakistani military vessels - ships and submarines from sailing the seas - confine them to port, as a way of applying pressure to Pakistan to force them to arrest and hand over for trial at Guantanamo Bay all those in the Pakistani military high command who have been involved with supporting Al Qaeda over the years since before the USS Cole attack.

Vrake
04-11-2014, 02:24 AM
^^^ sorry edited to read as one sentence.

I just can't fathom how such an honor bestowed on him was not properly displayed in the right way.

Peter Dow
04-11-2014, 03:26 AM
^^^ sorry edited to read as one sentence.

I just can't fathom how such an honor bestowed on him was not properly displayed in the right way.
Well I can't fathom why you still want Kayani to keep the honour?

I can't fathom why you think Kayani should still be entitled to wear the honour?

Wouldn't you rather Kayani's honour was withdrawn by the US Navy, Kayani stripped of the honour?

Why would you be content to let Kayani or any Pakistani military officer keep a US Navy honour anyway?

After all this is a general of the Pakistani military which sponsored Al Qaeda, the terrorist group which attacked the USS Cole, killing US Navy personnel.

Do you really want an enemy of the UN Navy like Kayani to keep a US Navy honour awarded to him while he accepted the honour dishonestly, under false pretences - Kayani telling lies, pretending to be a friend of the US Navy, while all the while, Kayani wasn't really a friend of the US Navy but a enemy, secretly plotting all the while with Osama Bin Laden to kill Americans and America's true friends and allies?

Vrake
04-11-2014, 03:34 AM
...

Peter Dow
04-11-2014, 03:50 AM
Well whether Kayani got a US Navy honour or not, he certainly has been welcomed aboard a US Naval vessel, an aircraft carrier, by Admiral Mike Mullen.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/US_Navy_080827-N-9580K-016_Chairman,_Joint_Chiefs_of_Staff,_Adm._Mike_Mul len_greets_Pakistani_Chief_of_Army_Staff,_Gen._Ash faq_Kayani.jpg

NORTH ARABIAN SEA (Aug.27, 2008) Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen greets Pakistani Chief of Army Staff, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, after arriving aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72). Lincoln is deployed to the U.S. 5th Fleet area of operations supporting Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom as well as maritime security operations. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class William John Kipp Jr./Released)

So Admiral Mike Mullen is another one who has been naive, gullible and foolish in his dealings with the Pakistani military which sponsored Al Qaeda, the terrorist group which bombed the USS Cole, killing American Navy personnel, did the 9/11 attacks on the US, and helped the Taliban kill American soldiers, marines and civilians in Afghanistan.

Absinthe Anecdote
04-11-2014, 11:12 AM
Well whether Kayani got a US Navy honour or not, he certainly has been welcomed aboard a US Naval vessel, an aircraft carrier, by Admiral Mike Mullen.



NORTH ARABIAN SEA (Aug.27, 2008) Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen greets Pakistani Chief of Army Staff, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, after arriving aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72). Lincoln is deployed to the U.S. 5th Fleet area of operations supporting Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom as well as maritime security operations. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class William John Kipp Jr./Released)

So Admiral Mike Mullen is another one who has been naive, gullible and foolish in his dealings with the Pakistani military which sponsored Al Qaeda, the terrorist group which bombed the USS Cole, killing American Navy personnel, did the 9/11 attacks on the US, and helped the Taliban kill American soldiers, marines and civilians in Afghanistan.

I would never use those words to describe Admiral Mullen, and neither should you. The world is a complex and very nasty place and this isn't the first time that our country has had to work with a country like Pakistan, and it won't be the last.

Besides, you've got part of the story messed up. It is Pakistan's intelligence service, the ISI, that has a long history with the Taliban, not Al Q'aida.

It is true that the Taliban and Al Q'aida are linked and that the political and military leadership in Pakistan is more concerned with their own objectives inside Pakistan.

These are often in direct conflict with the Coalition's objectives in Afghanistan. That is no secret and is doesn't mean we are naive and gullible for trying to work with Pakistan.

The Pentagon certainly was well aware that elements of the ISI were probably providing a safe haven to Bin Laden.

Short of invading Pakistan and starting another war, we didn't have much of a choice but to work with Pakistan.

Don't call Admiral Mullen naive and gullible, just because you have an axe to grind with royalists.

Peter Dow
04-11-2014, 01:56 PM
I would never use those words to describe Admiral Mullen, and neither should you.
Well maybe I'll come to the conclusion that you've been as naive, gullible and foolish about our Pakistani military enemies as has been Admiral Mullen, loyally following the lead of Presidents Bush and Obama?

The buck for naivety, gullibility and foolishness stops with the US president, as with everything else the US military does.


The world is a complex and very nasty place and this isn't the first time that our country has had to work with a country like Pakistan, and it won't be the last.
Considering the hard earned US taxpayer dollars paid in military and civil aid to Pakistan, it looks more like the US (along with the UK & other donor countries to Pakistan) has been working for, not "with" Pakistan and maybe that is a "first" in working for an enemy country, secretly still at war with the US?

It's not the first time the US has ended up working with an enemy who had attacked the US. As you know, imperial Japan attacked the US at Pearl Harbor in December 1941, leading the US to formally enter World War 2 and wage that war against the forces of imperial Japan in the Pacific.

So rather than pay Japan to not attack the US any more after Pearl Habor, the US waged war on Japan, beat them and then had a surrender ceremony on a US warship.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Shigemitsu-signs-surrender.jpg
Japanese Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu signs the Instrument of Surrender on behalf of the Japanese Government, on board USS Missouri (BB-63), 2 September 1945. Lieutenant General Richard K. Sutherland, U.S. Army, watches from the opposite side of the table.

But that was long, long ago, when American presidents were men and enemy powers got their military aggression returned to them with interest.

Nowadays, the US prefers to pay an enemy like Pakistan whose military is at secret war with the US, paying them billions of dollars and then that enemy Pakistan can afford to pay for a massive nuclear weapons build up, so now Pakistan can afford more nuclear weapons than its bigger neighbour India.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KUv4lbjkUTM/TcZMdK-KxdI/AAAAAAAABLc/SDAvfNByFOs/s1600/Pakistan%2BGhauri%2BMissile%2Bby%2Bpakistani%2Bdef ence%2B%252816%2529.jpg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hd0U6WLBqks

Pakistan's nuclear missiles don't have the range to reach the US from mainland Pakistan but they have submarines and if a Pakistani submarine can get close enough to the US mainland then a submarine launched nuclear-armed missile could hit the US mainland.

Although my guess is that going by previous form, the Pakistani military would opt to give, claiming "theft" one of their nuclear warheads to Al Qaeda to smuggle into the US and simply have one of their terrorists set off the nuclear warhead in a car or truck bomb.

http://s25.postimg.org/40obvagsv/nuke_pic1.jpg

That way, when a US city gets devastated by a Pakistani nuclear warhead, Pakistan will claim to be "innocent (again)" and ask for more money to "help to secure" their nuclear weapons against "those pesky Al Qaeda terrorists" which seem to operating so freely from bases in Pakistan.


Besides, you've got part of the story messed up. It is Pakistan's intelligence service, the ISI, that has a long history with the Taliban, not Al Q'aida.
Yes sorry my sentence structure was not the best possible for clarity.


the Pakistani military which sponsored Al Qaeda, the terrorist group which bombed the USS Cole, killing American Navy personnel, did the 9/11 attacks on the US, and helped the Taliban kill American soldiers, marines and civilians in Afghanistan.

I tried to say too much in one long sentence and the part in bold would have been clearer in a separate sentence of its own.


It is true that the Taliban and Al Q'aida are linked and that the political and military leadership in Pakistan is more concerned with their own objectives inside Pakistan.
It is worth pointing out that the Pakistani military has a political objective of military dictatorship in Pakistan. Musharraf is currently on trial for treason in Pakistan and the generals would prefer to rule Pakistan without having to answer to the civil authorities. The democratically elected politicians of Pakistan were only given office, if not real power as yet, because of the pressure from the US which correctly understood the Pakistani military dictatorship to be the root cause of Pakistan's military aggression and use of terrorism.

The Pakistani military is an independent political power in Pakistan. They have their own political agenda. They are not loyal to the people and their elected representatives.

The Pakistani military is engaged in a power struggle with the democratic Pakistan politicians whom the US and NATO allies have tried to empower. It isn't the case that the political objectives of the Pakistani military are the same as the Pakistani people, politicians, political parties or civil authorities. The Pakistani military sponsors domestic terrorism inside Pakistan, via the ISI, to target their political rivals inside Pakistan.

The Pakistani military is at war with democracy inside their own country as much as in our homelands.


These are often in direct conflict with the Coalition's objectives in Afghanistan. That is no secret and is doesn't mean we are naive and gullible for trying to work with Pakistan.
Working with the elected politicians, understanding that they are under grave threat from their own military which sponsors terrorism against them, I understand.

Paying the enemy Pakistani military billions of dollars is not wise because a strong Pakistani military which is disloyal to Pakistan's own democracy, is not helping us to work with the elected politicians.

There's a political power struggle going on in Pakistan which we helped to start by pressing for elections, but we need to be clearly on the side of the people and their democracy and that means being against the Pakistani military which prefers dictatorship and is still scheming behind the scenes to re-take full dictatorship powers.


The Pentagon certainly was well aware that elements of the ISI were probably providing a safe haven to Bin Laden.
Well they are aware now, for sure.


Short of invading Pakistan and starting another war, we didn't have much of a choice but to work with Pakistan.
There are other war options short of invasion.

There's

ultimatums to Pakistan - demanding the arrest and hand over for trial all those like Kayani in the Pakistani military high command who have for years been commanding the ISI to sponsor terrorism -
naval blockades,
no fly zones,
financial sanctions,
missile strikes,
bombing raids on the ISI HQ etc.


The better choice for the US and NATO military was to leave diplomacy with Pakistan to our diplomats and use the military to do what it does best - confront our enemies with military measures.


Don't call Admiral Mullen naive and gullible, just because you have an axe to grind with royalists.
This naivety and gullibility has been widespread in NATO countries, republics and kingdoms alike, across the world the international political class has been naive and gullible in our dealings with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and that whole block of undemocratic, jihadi states which have been sponsoring Al Qaeda and similar terrorist groups against the rest of the world.

The axe with royalists is that I suspect they are the ones arguing most strongly in NATO for doing deals with the undemocratic Pakistani military, the undemocratic Saudi royals and the other undemocratic states, stopping short of regime-changing them. Royalists are accustomed to doing deals with their own royal family, representing an undemocratic power element in their own countries.

Whereas for a principled democratic republican, the notion of a monarch imposed instead of an elected president, or the notion of military dictators imposed, are simply unacceptable political notions and the choice of republican revolution, civil war, regime-change, whatever it takes, to establish a truly democratic republican state is the first and only choice.

Mjölnir
04-11-2014, 01:59 PM
Personal attacks or insults are not allowed.

sandsjames
04-11-2014, 02:01 PM
Banned? Wow...hopefully for embedding and not for content...

Oh...insults. You mean where he says that "one day" he may conclude that someone is "naive" and "gullible"? Yeah, those are pretty strong words.

edit again: cuz other than that, I can't find anything that resembles insults as stong as other users regularly get away with. I'd hope that you aren't banning based on your personal opinions about him excercising his freedom of speech.

But...I digress...the first rule of banning is that we aren't allowed to discuss banning.